This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Amsaim (talk | contribs) at 02:01, 5 February 2010 (→Your message: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:01, 5 February 2010 by Amsaim (talk | contribs) (→Your message: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
 |
|
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
Desysop
Copied from meta. Since your SUL doesn't exist, can you please confirm this here? Thanks, Pmlineditor&inbsp;∞ 08:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, that was me. — ξ 16:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Err... why?
Regards SoWhy 16:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Err... why?
- Even if it is not permanent, I hope you have thought this through. You were just getting started... Anyway, all the best. Regards, decltype (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, that was a quick burnout. I'm very sorry to see this! Have a nice retirement, Amalthea 09:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
|
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 04:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Selena image
The image for the Selena article is needed here on the wiki. This picture is displayed all over web-sites! So why can't wiki allow it here? And another thing just becuase this is the only article that has this picture doesn't mean that this picture is not notable it is. AJona1992 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC).
- The image is up for deletion because it is orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles. Per our non-free content criteria policy, non-free files must be used in at least one article (point 7). Even if this image is added back into the article, it would still fall under deletion because non-free files must be used at a minimum (point 3a). Notability is not a criteria for the use of files. — ξ 21:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Your message
Hi there. This editor added a link to the Islamophobia article into the "See also" section of a BLP article. I then reverted the editor's edit, placing a NPOV tag on the user's talk page. The other editor then reverted my edit. I stopped my edits there, and brought the issue to both RfP and AiV. On AiV an admin wrote this: User has been incorrectly or insufficiently warned. Re-report once the user has been warned sufficiently. Next, I asked the admin for an explanation, and he wrote: You are never violating the three revert rule if you're reverting vandalism. Thus I went ahead and reverted the edit of this editor again, this time citing addition of uncourced material.
How can I now be accused of "disruptive behaviour" when I am not the one who added the controversial link to the BLP article? I am the one fighting off vandalism on that BLP article, and now I am being accused of disruptive behaviour. I asked an admin what to do, he gave me the go ahead to revert the disruptive edits, and now a different admin appears accusing me of edit-war. Could you please look into this matter in detail, and check the time of the edits to see that I am not involved in any edit war, that I am merely fighting off vandalism? Lastly, when you write "discuss your issue on the article's talk page", shouldn't this be what the other editor ought to have done in the first place before adding such a controversial link into the BLP article? Amsaim (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)