Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Intoronto1125 (talk | contribs) at 23:59, 15 June 2011 (→May 2011). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. 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

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.