| Revision as of 15:48, 13 April 2013 editLevdr1lp (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers25,594 edits →Explanation of recent edits← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:33, 17 April 2013 edit undoLevdr1lp (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers25,594 edits →Explanation of recent edits: reNext edit → | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
| :{{tps}}Levdr1lostpassword's "plan" here is quite generous; he could, alternatively, seek a block for long term problems with ]. You like to play fast and loose with this rule, enforcing it on others when you just happen to think something is wrong, but not holding yourself to the same standards. It's not reasonable for you to add a bunch of info to an article and then expect others to go through and pick out individually the parts that are or aren't verifiable. ] (]) 02:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC) | :{{tps}}Levdr1lostpassword's "plan" here is quite generous; he could, alternatively, seek a block for long term problems with ]. You like to play fast and loose with this rule, enforcing it on others when you just happen to think something is wrong, but not holding yourself to the same standards. It's not reasonable for you to add a bunch of info to an article and then expect others to go through and pick out individually the parts that are or aren't verifiable. ] (]) 02:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::Thanks for the input, Qwyrxian. I'm not quite there yet (seeking a block), but I probably will be if this happens again. <span style="background:#000000;border:2px solid #000000">''']'''</span> / ''']''' 02:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC) | ::Thanks for the input, Qwyrxian. I'm not quite there yet (seeking a block), but I probably will be if this happens again. <span style="background:#000000;border:2px solid #000000">''']'''</span> / ''']''' 02:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::: is exactly what I'm talking about. Add content without a source, and I will revert it. Revert my revert again, and I will request an indefinite block for disruptive editing, specifically your long term violation of ]. <span style="background:#000000;border:2px solid #000000">''']'''</span> / ''']''' 01:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:33, 17 April 2013
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Thanks for your defense of OMW. And I think I know who Levdr1lostpassword is... email me if you can. Nathan Obral (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC) |
Disambiguation link notification for March 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling employees, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page OVW (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Browns Radio
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Explanation of recent edits
I am responding specifically to this edit summary. If you were a new editor unfamiliar with basic editing policy and guidelines, I might have approached the situation differently. But you're not a new editor. You've been editing for years now, and I myself have contacted you countless times regarding Verifiability, a core policy. Yet you continue to add, remove, or modify content without providing sources to support your claims. Not all the time, mind you. Not with every single edit. But often enough. You either knew the content you added about the midday shift at WLFM-LP was not supported by the reference provided, or you should have known. Either way you demonstrate a failure to follow a core editing policy. So this is where we are now: if you add content that is verified by a reliable source, then it stays (in general). If you add content that is not verified by a reliable source, don't be surprised when I revert it. If you're concerned about "all or nothing" – that is, if other borderline-trivial content is temporarily removed – I suggest you stop adding unsourced content. Respect the policies we all edit by, and I will respect your contributions (assuming they're properly sourced). Levdr1lostpassword / talk 02:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker)Levdr1lostpassword's "plan" here is quite generous; he could, alternatively, seek a block for long term problems with WP:V. You like to play fast and loose with this rule, enforcing it on others when you just happen to think something is wrong, but not holding yourself to the same standards. It's not reasonable for you to add a bunch of info to an article and then expect others to go through and pick out individually the parts that are or aren't verifiable. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input, Qwyrxian. I'm not quite there yet (seeking a block), but I probably will be if this happens again. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 02:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- This is exactly what I'm talking about. Add content without a source, and I will revert it. Revert my revert again, and I will request an indefinite block for disruptive editing, specifically your long term violation of WP:VERIFY. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 01:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input, Qwyrxian. I'm not quite there yet (seeking a block), but I probably will be if this happens again. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 02:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)