Christopher Kelk Ingold |
Seraphimblade (talk | contribs) m You have been blocked. using TW |
||
Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
Thanks in advance! <font color="#FF8000">[[User:Jobjörn|Jobjörn]]</font> ([[User talk:Jobjörn|Talk]] ° [[Special:Contributions/Jobj%C3%B6rn|contribs]]) 15:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
Thanks in advance! <font color="#FF8000">[[User:Jobjörn|Jobjörn]]</font> ([[User talk:Jobjörn|Talk]] ° [[Special:Contributions/Jobj%C3%B6rn|contribs]]) 15:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
<div style="padding:5px; border:1px solid #c0c090; background-color:#FEC;" class="user-block"> [[Image:Stop_hand.svg|30px|left]] You have been [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing for a period of '''24 hours''' in accordance with [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|Wikipedia's blocking policy]] for '''disruptive behavior'''. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text <nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki> below. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 16:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)</div><!-- {{uw-block1}} --> |
Revision as of 16:36, 26 March 2007
Vandalism of St.Lawrence College
I see you added Richard Gunn to the St.Lawrence College article but I can't find any evidence that he is notable. I have undone the edit but feel free to restore it if you can provide evidence. Pgr94 12:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- You are correct I was just spamming the school with an alumnus' name to see if anyone who went there was looking and editing the page. So although Rich was an alumnus he is not yet famous. I also went there and am not yet famous, which is sad. Curious Gregor - Synthesis for all 16:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Dr Alethea Tabor
An editor has nominated Dr Alethea Tabor, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. 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 by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr Alethea Tabor and 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. Thank you. 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. Jayden54Bot 19:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
de;eted article
Please work on the article in userspace and then move it to the articlespace when it is not a copyright violation. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 12:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Your attack on Pete.Hurd
Od Mishehu 14:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Surely it was not disrupting Wikipedia - I have had a false claim made against meas well, so surely he is defaming me as well. I have made my point on the page that I am meant to. I am only trying to bring the academic arguement to more people, I feel strongly that these people deserve regognition, but whenever they appear they are instantly removed. Why?? They are notable for trying to make a difference. Curious Gregor
- Next time you do something like that you'll be blocked. It's as simple as that. WP:POINT was written for exactly those kinds of disruptions. ~ trialsanderrors 22:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- So we are saying that the old boys network is alive and well. I have made my case yet he does not seem to have to make a case for himself. Block me all you like. I shall know that I am correct in my actions. It was an attack on Pete Hurd in the manner he attacked me, I reciprocated. I explained my sockpuppetery case against him. I feel it was fair, even though it was based upon a logical fallacy. If we examine WP:CIVIL It includes the line that not being civil can include calling for people to be banned. So why are you being uncivil towards me. - Curious Gregor - Synthesis for all 10:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Pete actually provided detailed evidence. If the evidence stands up or not is a different question, but that's why we have the system to have sockpuppet suspicions looked at by other admins. Your posting was by your own admission simply retaliatory. Blocking is not banning. Bans can only be implemented by the community. ~ trialsanderrors 18:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- So we are saying that the old boys network is alive and well. I have made my case yet he does not seem to have to make a case for himself. Block me all you like. I shall know that I am correct in my actions. It was an attack on Pete Hurd in the manner he attacked me, I reciprocated. I explained my sockpuppetery case against him. I feel it was fair, even though it was based upon a logical fallacy. If we examine WP:CIVIL It includes the line that not being civil can include calling for people to be banned. So why are you being uncivil towards me. - Curious Gregor - Synthesis for all 10:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Next time you do something like that you'll be blocked. It's as simple as that. WP:POINT was written for exactly those kinds of disruptions. ~ trialsanderrors 22:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Thick and thin (phrase)
An editor has nominated Thick and thin (phrase), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. 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 by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thick and thin (phrase) and 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. Thank you. 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. Jayden54Bot 13:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Notability of Henri Kagan
A tag has been placed on Henri Kagan, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}}
on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) 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. Od Mishehu 15:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- I removed the speedy tag. Notability is clearly asserted now. ~ trialsanderrors 18:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The category that you created is superfluous - there already exists a Category:Chemists. Please stop putting chemists in the category - and if you don't mind, revert the edits that you have already made. The category itself will redirect to the proper category. Best, DLandTALK 19:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Done happily - I did not revert changes as all but Stork (I think) did not point to chemists so they do now. It was an honest mistake though so no need to be so gruff. I have never seen the chemsits category before. Now I have and I shall dedicate some time tomorrow with populating the list some more. Also I have no idea how to revert pages, could you send me to where you find out. Many Thanks - Curious GregorTALK
License tagging for Image:FavorskiiReaction.png
Thanks for uploading Image:FavorskiiReaction.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey there. In case you're not already working on it, you might want to make sure to include a description of what a Bechamp reaction is and what's important about it. Thanks. NickelShoe (Talk) 18:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue I - March 2007
The inaugural March 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 04:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Christopher Kelk Ingold
Hello! Twice in a row you have tried to put Category:Chemists into the article on Christopher Kelk Ingold. I have on both occassions reverted your changes, as he is already categorized in Category:British chemists, which in turn is a sub-sub-category (or so) of Category:Chemists. (He is also in Category:Chemist stubs, which is also in turn included in Category:Chemists...)
Please refrain from adding people directly to Category:Chemists, instead, put them in to the appropriate subcategory. (See: Category:Chemists by nationality, Category:Chemists by sub-specialty.)
Thanks in advance! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)