| Revision as of 18:30, 25 November 2008 editKralizec! (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators35,851 edits →Friendly note regarding talk page messages: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:53, 25 November 2008 edit undoWill Beback (talk | contribs)112,162 edits →Friendly note regarding talk page messages: a different interpretationNext edit → | ||
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
| Hello. As a recent editor to ], I wanted to leave a friendly reminder that as per ], editors may remove messages at will from their own talk pages. While we may ''prefer'' that comments be archived instead, policy does not prohibit users -including anonymous editors like this one- from deleting messages from their own talk pages. The only kinds of talk page messages that cannot be removed (as per ]) are declined unblock requests (but only while blocks are still in effect), confirmed sockpuppet notices, or IP header templates (for unregistered editors). These exceptions only exist in order to keep a user from potentially gaming the system. Thanks, ] (]) 18:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC) | Hello. As a recent editor to ], I wanted to leave a friendly reminder that as per ], editors may remove messages at will from their own talk pages. While we may ''prefer'' that comments be archived instead, policy does not prohibit users -including anonymous editors like this one- from deleting messages from their own talk pages. The only kinds of talk page messages that cannot be removed (as per ]) are declined unblock requests (but only while blocks are still in effect), confirmed sockpuppet notices, or IP header templates (for unregistered editors). These exceptions only exist in order to keep a user from potentially gaming the system. Thanks, ] (]) 18:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :I have to disagree. Talk pages of IP accounts don't belong to anyone. Since we have no evidence that the same user is on an IP from one moment to the next, there is no way of knowing who is deleting the material. ]] ] 19:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:53, 25 November 2008
Hello, EqualRights, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
- Also feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
RE: Homophobia
Sure, I'll have a look. —Cyclonenim 15:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- I've responded on the article's talk page, and readded the category. —Cyclonenim 15:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- My apologies, a little misunderstanding on my part there. Anyway, I've stated my opinion and given a formal warning to the user for personal attacking. —Cyclonenim 13:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello!
Hello! :) I like your username. I totally support equal rights for everyone. This might interest you as well:
 |
Hello EqualRights! Thank you for your contributions to articles related to feminism. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Feminism, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of articles dealing with feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the WikiProject Feminism page for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Members". Thanks! |
--Grrrlriot (♠ ♣ ♦ ♥ †) 18:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Not a deliberate fortune-teller!
Hey there, thanks for correcting me on the Sweden thing. I was mostly going by what I was hearing on the radio, and it was a little unclear to me whether or not the bill had already passed since they were talking about the outcome in such certain terms. It sounded to me like it had, but I also missed the beginning of the story. Either way, it's a nice bit of news. :) --Arvedui (talk) 09:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
3RR
If you see an editor go past 2RR then you need to warn them on their talk page otherwise you will have to wait an extra revert before posting a 3RR report. If User:Conductcode reverts once more then you need to show the following version reverted to, 1RR, 2RR, 3RR warning given. Add one more revert and you can file a report and it is a 24hour block for a first offense. Warnings in edit summaries don't count. I hope this information has been of use to you. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- The 3RR can be a handy thing to know, as most vandals have no idea about it, if you see a 3RR in progress warn as quickly as possible, also take a look at the format of 3RR reports on the admin page. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Greetings
Hi I must have overlooked u before. I have just a issue with a part of one sentence on pegging its "suggested" that men "may" get more satisfaction. Its just an opinion and not a fact. I also read the entire article you referenced from askmen.com and do not see it "suggested" that men MAY enjoy anal stim more than women anywhere. Some women may enjoy anal stim more than men because it stimulates the vagina as they share the same membrane.Just because men have a prostate doesn't mean they enjoy prostate stimulation some find it painful some get nothing out of it.It is an individual thing. Sorry to have deleted the entire section on you....new girl in town :) . Lets resolve this in some way. Conductcode (talk) 12:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, the best place to discuss is (publicly) in the article talk page —EqualRights (talk) 13:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Democrat Party (phrase)
Thank you for adding the source to this article which I had tagged. --Tom 14:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Friendly note regarding talk page messages
Hello. As a recent editor to User talk:68.46.183.96, I wanted to leave a friendly reminder that as per WP:USER, editors may remove messages at will from their own talk pages. While we may prefer that comments be archived instead, policy does not prohibit users -including anonymous editors like this one- from deleting messages from their own talk pages. The only kinds of talk page messages that cannot be removed (as per WP:BLANKING) are declined unblock requests (but only while blocks are still in effect), confirmed sockpuppet notices, or IP header templates (for unregistered editors). These exceptions only exist in order to keep a user from potentially gaming the system. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 18:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have to disagree. Talk pages of IP accounts don't belong to anyone. Since we have no evidence that the same user is on an IP from one moment to the next, there is no way of knowing who is deleting the material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)