| Revision as of 20:34, 27 August 2009 editArthur Rubin (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers130,168 edits →August 2009: copyedit← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:38, 27 August 2009 edit undoArthur Rubin (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers130,168 edits →August 2009: 3RRNext edit → | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
| Kindly do not label things as libellous in your edit summaries, as you did at . The word "alleged" is not libellous. - <span style="font-family: cursive">]</span> 19:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC) | Kindly do not label things as libellous in your edit summaries, as you did at . The word "alleged" is not libellous. - <span style="font-family: cursive">]</span> 19:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ''']'''{{#if:Uri Geller|  according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. Note that the ] 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 ]. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to ] to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. Please stop the disruption, otherwise '''you may be ] from editing'''. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> Please revert your last edit, as it is not sourced '''anywhere'''. I cannot, because I would otherwise violated 3RR, as well, and I don't think they were all BLP corrections. — ] ] 20:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:38, 27 August 2009
Welcome - please review our External Links policies
Welcome
Hello and welcome to Misplaced Pages. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Misplaced Pages does not allow advertising in articles. For more information on this, see
- Policy on neutral point of view
- Guideline on spam
- Guideline on external links
- Guideline on conflict of interest
If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Misplaced Pages.
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing Misplaced Pages! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! --Versageek 23:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
April 2007
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added to the page Surfing do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Misplaced Pages is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Misplaced Pages uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Versageek 23:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
May 2007
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is not a mere directory of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policy for further explanations. Since Misplaced Pages uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Thank you. -- zzuuzz 12:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
August 2009
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did to Uri Geller. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Removal of sourced information (libelous or not) and addition of unsourced information is not appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- You are saying that removal of libelous, incorrect, content is not appropriate? What I deleted was unsourced, libelous, and completely wrong information, which stated that he was given a name at birth which he was NOT given, and which stated he was named after his cousin, which he was not - and other opinionated and none sourced comments. I am not sure how this can be classed as vandelism?Moondial (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, actually, yes, but...
- The material you're removing is not libelous.
- The material you're removing is not (demonstrably) incorrect. I believe it to be correct, but I'm only restoring the ones which were sourced.
- If it were defamatory and incorrect, the proper thing to do would be to add as "X states that ....", rather than removing the note, provided that the fact that X states it is sourced and relevant to the article.
- — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, actually, yes, but...
Kindly do not label things as libellous in your edit summaries, as you did at Uri Geller. The word "alleged" is not libellous. - Nunh-huh 19:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Uri Geller. 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. If that proves 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. Please revert your last edit, as it is not sourced anywhere. I cannot, because I would otherwise violated 3RR, as well, and I don't think they were all BLP corrections. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)