| Revision as of 08:36, 2 November 2007 editTvoz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers28,638 edits →Reid-Limbaugh letter controversy: edit warring← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:19, 2 November 2007 edit undoYilloslime (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers10,467 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
| {{{icon|] }}}You currently appear to be engaged in an ]{{{{{subst|}}}#if:Hillary Rodham Clinton|  according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the ]. If you continue, you may be ] from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. {{{{{subst|}}}#if: You have repeatedly inserted POV wording that has been reverted by several editors. You do not have consensus and are well over the 3RR limit. Please stop now.| You have repeatedly inserted POV wording that has been reverted by several editors. You do not have consensus and are well over the 3RR limit. Please stop now.|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 08:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC) | {{{icon|] }}}You currently appear to be engaged in an ]{{{{{subst|}}}#if:Hillary Rodham Clinton|  according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the ]. If you continue, you may be ] from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. {{{{{subst|}}}#if: You have repeatedly inserted POV wording that has been reverted by several editors. You do not have consensus and are well over the 3RR limit. Please stop now.| You have repeatedly inserted POV wording that has been reverted by several editors. You do not have consensus and are well over the 3RR limit. Please stop now.|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 08:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ==AfD nomination of ]== | |||
| ]An editor has nominated ], an article on which you have worked or that you created, for ]. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "]"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at {{#if:Fovean_chronicles | ] | ] }} and please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the ] template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. ] ] 16:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:19, 2 November 2007
License tagging for Image:FoveanCover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:FoveanCover.jpg. Misplaced Pages gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Misplaced Pages, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 05:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't copyvio
Please be more careful with your contributions. The last paragraph of this edit of yours was a copyright violation of the LA Times article you were citing. You either have to directly quote (as you did in the paragraph before) or write in your own words. As an author yourself, you should understand. Wasted Time R 03:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
P.S. The material was cleaned up and relocated to Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2008#Other_irregularities, where it belongs for now. If this turns out to be a story with legs, it can go into the main article.
Your edits....
I'm not going to revert your most recent reverts of Reid-Limabugh Letter and Hillary Clinton. I'm going to let someone else do that, and hopefully you'll see that your edits go against consensus. And hopefully someone will explain why they violate WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, etc. If no one explains this, maybe I'll take it up, but I don't have time to right now. Maybe you could save everyone a little time by reading these policies yourself, and then reconsider your edits.
I also suggest reading wikipedia's guideline on conflicts of interest, as your editing of Fovean chronicles appears to run afoul of it. Also on the topic of Fovean chronicles, note that it does not appear to meet wikipedia's notability standards for books, and unless the article is improved to demonstrated the notability of the books, then it is liable to be nominated for deletion. Finally, your username might be inappropriate: "Usernames that match the name of a company or group, especially if the user promotes it" are considered inappriate.
I suggest reading up on what wikipedia is and is not and consider changing your editing style accordingly. The articles I've linked above would be a good place to start. Yilloslime (t) 01:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Reid-Limbaugh letter controversy
I have removed your most recent addition(s) to the Reid-Limbaugh letter controversy, for two reasons. First, the (unnecessarily) lengthy quote you inserted is not properly cited. The Boston Globe article that is linked contains no such quote; please familiarize yourself with wikipedia's verifiability policy. In addition, you've included editorial opinions slamming Reid in a strident, biased tone completely unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Please familiarize yourself with wikipedia's NPOV policy before continuing to edit on wikipedia.-Hal Raglan 04:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Reid-Limbaugh letter controversy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Tvoz |talk 08:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Well over 3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hillary Rodham Clinton. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. You have repeatedly inserted POV wording that has been reverted by several editors. You do not have consensus and are well over the 3RR limit. Please stop now. Tvoz |talk 08:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Fovean chronicles
An editor has nominated Fovean chronicles, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Fovean_chronicles and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Yilloslime (t) 16:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)