| Revision as of 03:50, 18 November 2009 editNuclearWarfare (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators83,664 editsm →November 2009: c/e← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:02, 18 November 2009 edit undoOrderinchaos (talk | contribs)Administrators70,076 edits →November 2009: +Next edit → | ||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
| == November 2009 == | == November 2009 == | ||
| <div class="user-block"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''1 week''' for '''excessive violations of the ].'''. Addition of unsourced content into a biography of living person, especially after a warning, is completely unacceptable. If you believe this block is unjustified you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here}} below. <font color="navy">''']</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 03:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block2 --> | <div class="user-block"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''1 week''' for '''excessive violations of the ].'''. Addition of unsourced content into a biography of living person, especially after a warning, is completely unacceptable. If you believe this block is unjustified you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here}} below. <font color="navy">''']</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 03:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block2 --> | ||
| : This block was heavy-handed and ill-justified. I see '''nothing''' in to justify a '''one week block'''. I have unblocked, reverted the text (with the sole exception of the text about health difficulties at the end) and will refer my own actions to AN/I following this post. ] 04:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:02, 18 November 2009
| Archives |
|---|
(feel free to add/edit your own comments) |
Welcome to my talk page, where you are welcome to leave a message at the bottom of this page for any reason at all and I will attempt to respond ASAP. I try to remember to respond on your talk page, and I mostly do, but if you leave a message here and for some reason i'm not replying, perhaps check back here from time to time :-)
My edit count. Backup if not working. 1,757 watchlist articles and counting.
There is no cabal. Mmmm, cabal...
Lindsay Tanner references
I have to say I found your edit summary here a little rude. Moving the tag to a single section is incorrect, the majority of the article is unsourced and the tag applies to more than a single section. Given that most of the article could have been deleted under BLP policy, I hardly think adding the tag to attract people to improve the article is "pointless". From WP:TC: "In obscure articles with few editors, the templates can serve to attract attention to problems that have not been addressed. In articles that are heavily edited or discussed, templates can be used to indicate ongoing problems or disputes in order to attract outside help and caution readers that the content may be shortly subject to change. Unless otherwise noted, they should be placed at the top of the article." Jezebel'sPonyo 02:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- It's been brought to my attention on my talk page that my comments above may have come off other than I had intended. If so, I apologize. I really was just trying to get more sources added to the article so that the multiple inline citation tags could be removed, improving readability. I always try to add references to articles as opposed to simply tagging them (as I had done here earlier in the day), but was on a time crunch. All's well that ends well though, as additional sources have been added. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo 04:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Gordon Moyes
Timeshift9, there's no rational reason for the changes you have made. All you have done is remove factual information so I can only assume the intent is a personally motivated one / vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curleighandmowe (talk • contribs) 02:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
.........................................................
Re the changes on Nathan Rees site. Information put is fully accurate, provable and citable. Please advise protocol difficulties. Wish right of free speech but realise obligation to Wiki is absolute accuracy. Not vandalism nor POV. Facts as printed in revertable objects. Advise ? Yours In goodwill.
WTF
9 CDP candidates in a total pool of 22 in the Bradfield by-election. ABC AEC Scary to think the amount that's going to cost in non-refundable nomination fees alone. Orderinchaos 02:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Australian Sex Party
The Australian Sex Party's logo, as displayed on the ASP article here on Misplaced Pages, clearly shows the colours red and either a deep yellow or orange. Is this acceptable to you, to use the colors on their logo? or does the term Party not mean they are an individual candidate such as an Independent candidate? BTW, I have done some editing on Nathan Rees I would like to read your detailed critisisim on my talk page or that article instead of a three word expert opinion. Watchover (talk) 09:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Your action of violating WP:BURDEN at a WP:BLP article
You have violated WP:BURDEN at a WP:BLP article, by your recent actions at the article Nick Xenophon. Do not do this again. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
November 2009
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below. NW (Talk) 03:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- This block was heavy-handed and ill-justified. I see nothing in this diff to justify a one week block. I have unblocked, reverted the text (with the sole exception of the text about health difficulties at the end) and will refer my own actions to AN/I following this post. Orderinchaos 04:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)