You're not seriously suggesting we agreed on something, are you? Avriette 02:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, you shouldn't really add external links to sites you maintain. See the policy here, "A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link." — I'll look over the link and see if it is worth keeping. - FrancisTyers · 11:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. — Mets501 ( talk) 03:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Renominating an article for deletion over and over is disruptive. After the AfD "failure", I would recommend using WP:3O or WP:RFC. Using the same approach over and over again isn't going to work. Electrawn 21:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
William Starr Myers: The Story of New Jersey. He makes the straightforward claim of unconstitutional tyranny, with less detail and substantiation than is available dozens of other places; starting, I believe, with the Liberty Lobby. Septentrionalis 15:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Stop vandalizing articles. You are deleting cited info. You are also deleting my comments from talk pages. Bridge & Tunnel 07:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I have blocked both yourself and Bridge & Tunnel for 24 hours for repeated reverting. I don't see why others should suffer by having a page locked if two users are reverting each other. I understand you may feel that B&T has been disruptive but our polices on reversions only legitimise it for obvious vandalism, which this isn't a case of. Cool off, try and discuss further and don't react to users by reverting. -- Robdurbar 14:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Generally, a user-conduct RFC is seen as a pretty serious step. Before dispute resolution and article RfC's have even been tried or offered, I'm very hesitant to certify one, and I'm not sure this case rises to that level. I think the AfD is probably a better step to resolve the questionable notability. Have you offered or tried any other methods in WP:DR? Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 22:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikistalking to retaliate against an edit you don't like can result in a block. Please adhere to Wikipedia rules and policies. THF 19:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I am doing some Wallace related research. I think we may be on the same page about some of this. From seeing your experience, I know there will be some push-back. My project is a bit different, but we expect to have hundreds of citations. I'm looking for a little guidance as well as maybe some help on the site to protect some edits. Are you still active, interested? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChuckWingate ( talk • contribs) 18:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Neo-Tech is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-Tech (2nd nomination) 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 05:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)