This is my talk page. Please append all accolades, brickbats and threats to the bottom of the page.
Rævhuld, you are invited to the Teahouse!
Requesting immediate archiving...
Hi Rævhuld! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC) |
Nomination of Danish English for deletion
Requesting immediate archiving...
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Danish English is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danish English until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. John of Reading (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
ANI-notice
Requesting immediate archiving... There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Direct link to discussion. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 22:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
March 2017
Requesting immediate archiving...
Please do not create, maintain or restore hoaxes on Wikipedia. Hoaxes are eligible for speedy deletion under criterion G3. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia — and then to correct them if possible. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia. Feel free to take a look at the five pillars of Wikipedia to learn more about this project and how you can contribute constructively. Thank you. Black Kite (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Requesting immediate archiving... Hello, I'm Usernamekiran. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Talk:John F. Kennedy have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.
Even though after getting a notice previously regarding this issue. In the light of recent events, your edits appear to constitute vandalism. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
March 2017
Requesting immediate archiving... Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to U and non-U English, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. —jameslucas (" " / +) 02:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hello. Your edits here on en-WP, including the deleted ones, can be seen in two very different ways, if we assume good faith they can be seen as having been made by a new editor who doesn't yet know the rules here, but if we don't, and add your remarkable proficiency in Wikicode/markup right from the start, which usually indicates that an editor has been here before under a different username, to the equation, your edits can be seen as trolling Wikipedia just for fun. Your edit on U and non-U English was correctly reverted by JamesLucas since you provided no source for it, as required by Wikipeda's verifiability rules, which clearly state that it is up to editors adding material to articles to provide sources for all material added, when adding the material, and also that unsourced edits can be reverted. And providing references in talk page posts later doesn't change anything, if you want that material in the article it's up to you to add it again, not 'JamesLucas', with references and all. In addition to that your follow-up edits (on JamesLucas's talk page and the talk page of the article), where you imply that 'JamesLucas' is "from the lower classes", are not acceptable since, to quote WP:NPA, "disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done"
, and have been reverted. Or to sum things up, you're on thin ice, so behave. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 12:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)