| Revision as of 03:27, 4 October 2008 editHalfShadow (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers34,876 editsm Reverted edits by 71.84.126.4 (talk) to last version by HalfShadow← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:36, 4 October 2008 edit undo76.116.88.243 (talk) #REDIRECT You are using an unauthorized bot that automatically blocks people.Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| <!-- ADD NEW SECTIONS TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE --> | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 90K | |||
| |counter = 7 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 4 | |||
| |algo = old(9d) | |||
| |archive = User talk:Rjd0060/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }}{{User:Rjd0060/uttop}} | |||
| == Pathetic Vandal(s) == | |||
| Eastern Wyoming College's IP address has been the source of numerous blatant vandalism. In February 2008 it was blocked by you for three months. But now, this institution is back to continuous vandalism. So please do something to it. (]) Thanks. — ] (]) 19:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Vandalism by Krazykev929 == | |||
| You had previously warned ] that if he continued vandelising, you would ban him. today he vandalized America's Next Top Model, Cycle 11]] -] (]) 23:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Wwhile your at it, you might want to warn (or ban) ] and ], who made similar vandalistic edits -] (]) 23:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Your comment on my page confused me. On Krazykev929's talk page you called what he did vandalism, When he put spculative information in the big brother page. But now, when he adds a completely speculative future elimination order, on the ANTM page, you say it's not vandalism? Just to remind you what you put on his page before: | |||
| :: {{{icon|] }}}This is your '''final warning'''. <br> The next time you ] Misplaced Pages, as you did to ], you '''will''' be ] from editing. <!-- Template:uw-vandalism4 --> ''Although your edits are probably accurate, they are a bit premature. Please review ], and wait until the event actually happens (which will happen on the live show Tuesday) before you make this change again. This is now considered VANDALISM as you continue to disrupt the BB page, therefore this is your final warning! '' ] 15:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Deleted something that should have been kept!!! - Towns in RSK == | |||
| Hello, you have disrupted a perfectly viable and just wikipedia page. The link is, http://en.wikipedia.org/Towns_in_the_Former_RSK . You seem to put some rational for its deletion there. However, if you even bothered to read the rational that you put, you will see many faulty things. That rational link that you provide shows clearly that the page should stay. The rational link agrees that the category should be deleted, and it was deleted a long time ago. However, it clearly says that the towns should be listified as they have been in that topic. Why did you delete this topic then? That talk/debate was about the category, and the decision was to keep it as a topic. You are disrupting wikipedia! Please put that topic back as soon as possible. (] (]) 02:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)) | |||
| Hi, Rjd0060.<br> | |||
| I've restored the tag for the speedy deletion on this article ].<br> | |||
| Please, see the talkpage ] (it's the summary of the discussion on WP:CFD, see link there). <br> | |||
| Keeping that article is <u>ordinary evasion of the results </u> of the discussion on the deletion of the category (category, created by the same user; articles were categorized, beside others, with few sockpuppets). '''Delete''' (15 votes), '''keep''' (7 votes), '''delete and listify''' (6 votes). <br>15 is more than 7+6. Please, we must respect the results.<br> | |||
| Otherwise, what are we getting into? Towns in the former Third Reich?<br> | |||
| I repeat again. When LAz17 saw that he's about to lose in voting on the deletion of category, he created the article. ] (]) 06:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Centre Sheraton == | |||
| ] in ]. Before deleting that page you could, and should, have checked to see how many articles are linked to it. You created a mess. This could have been just as valid as say ] or ] ] 00:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :The problem?? It could have been marked as a stub. Why not just delete the other two as well, especially the Toronto one? ] 00:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Some of the news articles at http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Centre+Sheraton%22+Montreal are probably sufficient to establish notability for the hotel. --] (]) 15:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I deleted it because a ] when uncontested. I have no opinion on whether or not it should have been deleted. If Peter Horn had read the proposed deletion policy instead of going around calling me "disruptive" in various places, he would have noticed that PROD-deleted articles can be restored upon request. - ] (]) 16:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Of course. If you could restore the article, I could add the articles from the search that I mentioned. -- ] (]) 17:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == please restore history of ] == | |||
| You deleted ] as an expired prod, and earlier another editor deleted a previous version. A new version of the article has been created which demonstrates notability through charting and tours. Could you please restore the history of the article, as it might be possible to expand the article with information from the deleted versions? -- ] (]) 15:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == deletion of "asynchronous procedure call" article == | |||
| Can you point me to the deletion debate? Usually when a page has been deleted the template has a link to the discussion that led to the deletion. | |||
| Failing that, is there a way I could get a quick look at the article as it was before deletion? | |||
| Thanks in advance for your assistance. ] (]) 23:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Thank you for your ! Makes sense. ] (]) 23:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Clarifying your actions == | |||
| I'd like to clarify now how you think WP:SPS does not apply to articles? Are you saying this article should have immunity to WP:V? What do you exactly mean? I'd also like to know why you only give one party an edit warring warning and not the other. Takes two to go to battle right? Are you also making a statement now that WP:BURDEN does not apply to GlassCobra? ] (]) 00:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Hi, I am seeking your help from a wikipedian that you have blocked before ] and also from ], who are attempting to vandalize the page of ]. Please check my talk page and both their talk page to read what they accused me of.] (]) 21:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry. Orthopraxia has been reported for 3RR and is lashing out. See the report here: . --] (]) 02:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:36, 4 October 2008
Redirect to: