| Revision as of 19:03, 5 August 2007 editScipio3000 (talk | contribs)875 edits →About the Jewish delention & Why are you undoing my Work???← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:08, 5 August 2007 edit undoScipio3000 (talk | contribs)875 edits →About the Jewish delention & my Sicilian article and about Why are you undoing my Work???Next edit → | ||
| Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
| ==About the Jewish delention & my Sicilian article and about Why are you undoing my Work???== | ==About the Jewish delention & my Sicilian article and about Why are you undoing my Work???== | ||
| If I deleted the Jewish sentence it was because I wanted to place it in better context, It did not fit where it was at. I was cut & pasting several parts of the article at once, adding dates and names and more depth. So I forgot to paste it or I copied something else and it was erased it was not intentional, so please back off and quit harrasing me for an accident. Put it back up if it is a problem, I would if I knew how. But please quit deleting my ontributions to the Roman section. It is too short and does not have dates or the names. I am not quite sure why you are so against me adding more depth that is much needed on these articles. So I would appreciate if you would quit harrasing me and deleting my work. Honestly what is the problem, whay are you so Hostile? | ''If I deleted the Jewish sentence it was because I wanted to place it in better context, It did not fit where it was at. I was cut & pasting several parts of the article at once, adding dates and names and more depth. So I forgot to paste it or I copied something else and it was erased it was not intentional, so please back off and quit harrasing me for an accident. Put it back up if it is a problem, I would if I knew how. But please quit deleting my ontributions to the Roman section. It is too short and does not have dates or the names. I am not quite sure why you are so against me adding more depth that is much needed on these articles. So I would appreciate if you would quit harrasing me and deleting my work. Honestly what is the problem, whay are you so Hostile? | ||
| On the Norman section!!! | On the Norman section!!! | ||
| The reason I altered it was simple. The |
The reason I altered it was simple. The Arab section had 5 seperate section took up over half the article. no references were uswed it was biased and opionated. While all the other periods, only have one section apiece. The section on the Arab period were not factual and not referenced. I am sorry if you want to add something more about Arab Sicily add a link. There is no reason why I should allow false information and bias to misplace factual history. I think what you are doing is Rude. '' Why shouldn't Sicilians be allowed to have there history told factually and corrrect??'' Why should our page be vandalized?? The heading of "Saracen Arab" is factual and should not be altered. I don't treat it negatively..I am just not going to take up half of the article and use 5 sub headings(which only had a few sentences each). So consolidated the factual information into a concise summary. Why is that a problem for you?? Why should the Arab period who only had control of the Island for 200 years get half a page, when the Greeks who had a millenia influence ont he island only get one section and a brief paragraph?? And how about the Norman section, not only was it brief and sloppy, it was called the Arab Norman period, and did not focus on the Normans at all...why is okay for you to slander the Norman period, which is considered the greatest period besides the Ancient Greek period, to be the greatest in Sicilian histroy. This is my heritage and I am going to make sure that this page stay's relevant. I hope you are not going to be difficult and vandalise my factual information...my whole Norman section is referenced, so why vandalise factual, referenced material for your own political or personal reasons. | ||
| Add a link if you want to expand or create a seperate page for a specific time period, ie, Arab Sicily, Greek Sicily, Roman Sicily, etc. There were 5 non-referenced sections concerning Arab Sicily. I consolidated the 5 sub-heading sections on Arab Sicily into one, more complete and factual "Saracen Arabs". I also added more information concerning the "Norman" period. The previous section has no refernces and does not fit with the overview. Tell me what gives uyou the right to delete my work? The Arab period constituted only 200 years and deserves to be put in the proper context like all the other sections. It is not factual and too biased. SO please quite messing with my work. I have alot of pride in my heritage, '''and I want to give people curious about my ethnicity a good factual concise summary on each section, so why do you want to put sloppy biased, non referenced material over my more elaborate, informatiuve and reference work???''' What is going on here?? You deleted everything I have done, what is wrong with you?? Could you please quit harrasing me. Thank you'''' | |||
| ] 4 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Revert of catchphrase information by loplop100== | ==Revert of catchphrase information by loplop100== | ||
Revision as of 19:08, 5 August 2007
|
About the Jewish delention & my Sicilian article and about Why are you undoing my Work???
If I deleted the Jewish sentence it was because I wanted to place it in better context, It did not fit where it was at. I was cut & pasting several parts of the article at once, adding dates and names and more depth. So I forgot to paste it or I copied something else and it was erased it was not intentional, so please back off and quit harrasing me for an accident. Put it back up if it is a problem, I would if I knew how. But please quit deleting my ontributions to the Roman section. It is too short and does not have dates or the names. I am not quite sure why you are so against me adding more depth that is much needed on these articles. So I would appreciate if you would quit harrasing me and deleting my work. Honestly what is the problem, whay are you so Hostile?
On the Norman section!!!
The reason I altered it was simple. The Arab section had 5 seperate section took up over half the article. no references were uswed it was biased and opionated. While all the other periods, only have one section apiece. The section on the Arab period were not factual and not referenced. I am sorry if you want to add something more about Arab Sicily add a link. There is no reason why I should allow false information and bias to misplace factual history. I think what you are doing is Rude. Why shouldn't Sicilians be allowed to have there history told factually and corrrect?? Why should our page be vandalized?? The heading of "Saracen Arab" is factual and should not be altered. I don't treat it negatively..I am just not going to take up half of the article and use 5 sub headings(which only had a few sentences each). So consolidated the factual information into a concise summary. Why is that a problem for you?? Why should the Arab period who only had control of the Island for 200 years get half a page, when the Greeks who had a millenia influence ont he island only get one section and a brief paragraph?? And how about the Norman section, not only was it brief and sloppy, it was called the Arab Norman period, and did not focus on the Normans at all...why is okay for you to slander the Norman period, which is considered the greatest period besides the Ancient Greek period, to be the greatest in Sicilian histroy. This is my heritage and I am going to make sure that this page stay's relevant. I hope you are not going to be difficult and vandalise my factual information...my whole Norman section is referenced, so why vandalise factual, referenced material for your own political or personal reasons.
Add a link if you want to expand or create a seperate page for a specific time period, ie, Arab Sicily, Greek Sicily, Roman Sicily, etc. There were 5 non-referenced sections concerning Arab Sicily. I consolidated the 5 sub-heading sections on Arab Sicily into one, more complete and factual "Saracen Arabs". I also added more information concerning the "Norman" period. The previous section has no refernces and does not fit with the overview. Tell me what gives uyou the right to delete my work? The Arab period constituted only 200 years and deserves to be put in the proper context like all the other sections. It is not factual and too biased. SO please quite messing with my work. I have alot of pride in my heritage, and I want to give people curious about my ethnicity a good factual concise summary on each section, so why do you want to put sloppy biased, non referenced material over my more elaborate, informatiuve and reference work??? What is going on here?? You deleted everything I have done, what is wrong with you?? Could you please quit harrasing me. Thank you'
User:JMG 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Revert of catchphrase information by loplop100
Why are you removing all of my additions? What have you got about against catchphrases? For most of these people, catchphases are pretty much all they're known for.
Kaito-Kid
hummmm...maybe you are right about Kira's background stuff...but the Allegiance, Rank/Position and Family informations ware all official. Kaito-kid 00:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Kaito-Kid
way did you Revert my last edits In the Kira Yamato,Athrun Zala, Lacus Clyne and Cagalli Yula Athha pages pages? Those were confirmed informations. Kaito-kid 23:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
My response
The reason why I changed that back is because the Ethnic origin is not for which government they were born into but rather their cultural background of which country they are based off of. Besides if you take a look at Kiras page you can see his background as Japanese. Anyway after looking at your message I can suggest if you want to talk about it with other users and see if it is reliable iformation then I would suggest looking into the talk page at WikiProject Mobile Operation System and posting a message. -Adv193 04:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
24.118.153.134
Okay, good to know. You should probably collect some examples (with diffs) so you'll have evidence to show admins who get involved. The edits are subtle and it's hard for an outsider to determine who is right. Let me know if you have any questions. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- There you go. You should probably make a user space page with all that (like User:Edward321/Evidence) so you can refer to it - and update it - whenever you need to. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hm, someone else is having trouble with this guy? Do you think we can finally get him banned? I've seen warnings galore on his talk page, but no action taken. Zaku 22:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Still, reverting so much is getting really tedious... he's very persistent. I tried reporting him two days ago... seems no action was taken. Zaku 22:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hm, someone else is having trouble with this guy? Do you think we can finally get him banned? I've seen warnings galore on his talk page, but no action taken. Zaku 22:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kunoichi
Why did you feel the need to delete several of my comments there? --UsaSatsui 18:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- No worries. Mistakes happen. Thanks for clearing it up. :) --UsaSatsui 03:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Afd Accident
No worries man. I've seen weirder things happen to me when working in the edit window. No need for my warning if it was an accident and changes have been reverted. Don't forget to add back in your vote, if you didn't already. No need to stay away over an innocent mistake. ;-) /Blaxthos 03:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Gundam Seed Infoboxes
Did you notice recently that Gundam Seed Character Infoboxes have been modified and that it will no longer display the love interests which I can understand if someone were to take them off. But anyway think it is time to remove them from the character pages since they no longer have any use. -Adv193 03:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!
Hi there, wanted to thank you for reverting my user page for me after the vandalism. I appreciated it. :) ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 22:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism?
How is adding more information vandalism?--Tempest115 02:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Apology accepted. I do see your point about the criticism being unsourced though I thought I removed that part. I also must agree with you about the abundant use of stock footage. It got annoying after a few episodes.--Tempest115 00:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
RE: NoobJ
Sorry I haven't written back sooner () - I am not currently active at Misplaced Pages. However, it's good to know there are people keeping an eye on it in my absence! Keep up the good work. --AbsolutDan 14:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Matthew Joseph Harrington
Thanks for the note. As you say, not worth doing anything; it's well on the road to deletion (unless everyone in the AFD is a closet Mason). Tearlach 10:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Jew Crew
Actually, I was just as within my rights to remove the hangon tag. There is no way in hell that article will be kept, and so I removed hangon under Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules policy. All the hangon tag is doing is delaying the inevitable and wasting an admins time by making them to have wait to and check back to see if a valid reason for inclusion is provided. DarkSaber2k 14:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Re: List of Gundam Seed characters
No problem. The article cleanup took me a lot longer to complete than I thought it would. And thanks for expressing your support for the cleanup. --Silver Edge 18:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Saving Private Ryan
You recently reverted one of my edits, claiming I deleted information rathr then moving it (Saving Private Ryan). Please re read my summary as well as the edit history. The information in question was moved to and incorporated into the Historical Background section over a series of 3 edits. I'm putting it back that way - if you've a problem with the changed let's discuss it on the article's talk page.--Lepeu1999 11:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ah! I see, cut-and-paste error on my part, thank you. Next time possibly more info in the edit summary or a note on the discussion page might be a better solution then a whole-scale revision.--Lepeu1999 13:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Drip
hi, please see WP:MOSDAB - no piping in disambig pages, no external links in disambig pages, one bluelink per line - also remember to use edit summaries when reverting. 82.3.64.139 13:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Siobhan Bennett
Hi. Unfortunately, I don't think Siobhan Bennett meets speedy criteia, as notability is asserted. Thus, I think it has to go to AfD. William Pietri 05:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Nevermind! Problem solved. Thanks for being bold. William Pietri 05:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Hamilton Central School
Hi, it is not permitted to revert a removed Prod. If concerned then take the article to WP:AFD. TerriersFan 23:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The Jewish Encyclopedia etc.
The copyright on The Jewish Encyclopedia expired long ago, and WP:STALK is forbidden by policy. Jayjg 05:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- According to the website, the encyclopedia is in the public domain. If it was published in the US before 1923, it becomes public domain; this was last published in 1906. User:Zscout370 06:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Please review John Henry Browne article and remove speedy deletion tag
You recently added a speedy deletion tag to John Henry Browne. I'm sure it did not meet the speedy deletion criteria to begin with, and after some minor edits on my part it certainly does not now -- more than that, it's completely appropriate and notable. I explain my rational in depth on the talk page. If you disagree, would you please change the speedy deletion to a request for consensus or some other appropriate method under Misplaced Pages guidelines and policy? Thanks. Wikidemo 04:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)