User talk:Hillcountries: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 23:59, 15 June 2011 editIntoronto1125 (talk \| contribs)37,384 edits →May 2011 ← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:18, 16 June 2011 edit undoAnomieBOT (talk \| contribs)Bots6,556,252 editsm Substing templates: {{uw-3rr}}. See User:AnomieBOT/docs/TemplateSubster for info.Next edit →
Line 42:		Line 42:

	==June 2011==		==June 2011==
			] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]. Users are expected to ] with others and avoid editing ].<br>
	{{uw-3rr}}
			In particular, the ] states that:
			# '''Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.'''
			# '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.'''
			If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents ] among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary ]. If you continue to edit war, you '''may be ] from editing without further notice.'''<!-- Template:uw-3rr -->

Revision as of 00:18, 16 June 2011

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Hillcountries, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Nomination of Global Organization for People of Indian Origin for deletion

The article Global Organization for People of Indian Origin is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Global Organization for People of Indian Origin 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. WuhWuzDat 15:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Global Organization for People of Indian Origin. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. WuhWuzDat 18:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean until you become a saint you should not pass on the God's word to others from Holy books(from any religion). What you have done is a Blatant attack to a community because your negligence to check using verifiable tools for Notability and the hidden motive of Only deletion of the article.Hillcountries (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

WuhWazDat has "previous form" - see http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Wuhwuzdat The nomination in this case gave no supporting arguments other than a bald and unsupported statement that the organisation was not notable. There was a complete failure on Wuhwuzdat's part to support the nomination and an overwhelming rejection of the his/her claim. Wuhwazdat has been substantially criticised in the past for an approach that deters users, in particular new users. The idea that WuhWazDat should be criticising others for deterring users is frankly risible. WuhWazDat's nomination has done nothing except waste other Misplaced Pages users' time and energy and cause discord. Opbeith (talk) 11:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This has happened for his chaos.Hillcountries (talk) 05:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for updating me, I didn't know that this ban had been proposed, but it seems appropriate. Just a shame you had to put up with the aggravation and everyone else had their time wasted. Opbeith (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

We wasted our time for nothing.Hillcountries (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Alleged war crimes during the Sri Lankan Civil War. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. snowolfD4 17:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.