|
I've reverted you simply because Liberty for Life fails our sourcing policy and guideline at WP:Verify and WP:RS. I wouldn't expect a new user to know this. Dougweller ( talk) 09:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
The article Global Eugenics: Using Medicine to Kill has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Lor
Chat 09:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Global Eugenics: Using Medicine to Kill 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/Global Eugenics: Using Medicine to Kill 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. TheLongTone ( talk) 10:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to
Global Eugenics: Using Medicine to Kill, please ensure that the external site is not
violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as
YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be
blocked from editing.
If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:
If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. The film itself is made up of YouTube videos which are presumably copyright, hence we can't link to it as the film itself is a copyright violation Dougweller ( talk) 14:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
You need to read WP:MOVIE to understand what we mean when we say a film is notable, which is very different than what I think is your meaning. You also need to understand our sourcing policy, see WP:RS. Dougweller ( talk) 07:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Boss Reality! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Please read WP:NOR. We can't say something is obvious. We might be able to quote someone saying that, but we can't decide what is related to what, that's original research. Dougweller ( talk) 10:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rima Laibow 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/Rima Laibow 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. LuckyLouie ( talk) 12:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Apparently because I am insisting that you follow our policy and guidelines on sources, particularly for living people (see WP:BLP you think I may be vandalising or trying to bury a connection between Stubblebine and Laibow. That's ridiculous. What I want to know is if you've bothered to read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS and if so how do you justify using fringe websites and self-published books as sources? Or a book published 11 years ago as proof they are married today? Wasn't Stubblebine married before? And as I said on this BLP talk page, we've had situations when we have known someone was dead but there was no way we could state that in their article due to lack of reliable sources.
It's hard to believe that you have read the guidelines and polices that other editors and myself have tried to get you to read so that you will understand why your edits are being reverted or articles taken to AfD. In discussions you don't refer to them. You really need to start doing so. I don't mean to be harsh but this is wasting good editors' time. Dougweller ( talk) 12:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Albert Stubblebine shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dougweller ( talk) 13:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rima Laibow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alex Jones ( 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) 08:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
( Boss Reality ( talk) 10:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC))
Please stop posting illiterate gibberish like this into the Rima Laibow article. Either she stated something, or she didn't. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 19:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I really need to understand what you think we mean by "reliable sources". We do require WP:COMPETENCE. I presume you have read the links you've been given. So let me know how you understand the phrase? Dougweller ( talk) 07:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rima Laibow may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 10:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rima Laibow may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 11:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gary Null may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 11:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Gary Null may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 07:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Codex Alimentarius may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 08:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Below is what I have posted in the Talk Section of the Codex Alimentarius article. I have added a new section Vocal concern to Codex Alimentarius and opposition to the article. This contains people in vocal opposition to Codex Alimentarius. Now I have no doubt in my mind that there is an angenda here to censor certain information that relate to certain issues. Having been here for a short time I have had 2 articles deleted. In my opinion, the second one was deliberately and strategically vandalised in a way to make it seem worthless in the eyes of others. Perhaps some people who normally would rescue and improve such an article wouldn't when it was made such a mess. Now I've addeed this section here with the nammes of people that some here may find controversial. I know that some here would do anything to censor this info. Wikipedia should not be censored and if it continues I will take the matter further. Thanks. ( Boss Reality ( talk) 07:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC))
You are making threats and failing to accept good faith and making false accusations of WP:VANDALISM. If they weren't so feeble I might consider you've had enough rope, but I strongly advise you to stop. Dougweller ( talk) 08:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Now as for threats, I've made nothing of the sort. All I said is that if this (What I believe to be) unconstructive behavior continues, I'd take the matter futher. Now I know that when people see things untoward here they report the matter to senior staff. If in some way I'm unique and I am not allowed to engage in this process then please let me know. So there are 2 questions I'd like to put to you BullRangifer ......
>>> Am I or am I not allowed to report or bring to the attention of senior admin or site owners, things that I believe to be wrong and unfair ????
>>> Am I or am I not allowed to edit articles or create articles that may have controversial matters people in them? And further expansion on this question, Should I not add things that may offend or anger someone because it may conflict their belief system or offend their political or other beliefs? Should I not add any content that may give an indication that a certain organisation may not be doing the right thing?
Thanks (
Boss Reality (
talk) 23:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC))
Quote - Doug Weller is an admin, so you're already dealing with leadership. Since he's not abusing his admin tools, you won't get anywhere, except to damage your credibility and make enemies.
Reply Sorry my friend, I'm in total disagreement here. I've experienced different.
Quote - Now please answer my question: Do you work for the
National Health Federation?
Reply, No, not that org. I work for the Nice Happy Fountain. And not the one in
Church Crookham either. The Nice Happy Fountain is me my friend. The sheer aburdity of your question has hit my happy spot and no matter how hard I try, I have to say my good friend that I cannot take any kind of offence to that remark or even bother to ponder on the questioners actual intent. You've put a smile on my face and bless you for that. (
Boss Reality (
talk) 09:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC))
And as for the NHF, I don't know if that organisation and Scott Tips are decent people or controlled opposition. That's not the reason for my edits and article creation. Mine is that this is a public website and I stand against certain types of censorship. I WILL NOT stand by idle and watch this place turned into an extension of a certain news (and that's a joke) organisation with some one like (Fictional name) Bull O'Really parroting a script that has been written by people who decide what we're allowed to know. ( Boss Reality ( talk) 23:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC))
Boss, this isn't a "public website". It's an encyclopedia anyone can help build provided they agree to abide by its policies. You've read our policies, yes? - LuckyLouie ( talk) 01:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Scott Tips 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/Scott Tips 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. LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Scott Tips. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. This edit [1] - see the talk page and the AfD. Dougweller ( talk) 11:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scott Tips, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CCFA. 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) 08:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Allison Mackie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Thompson. 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) 09:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
First there was the claim that Goth Girls was a tv series. Then there was B.O.G.E. - you obviously don't know what this is. I wonder if you found this. [2] You obviously didn't find these. [3] [4] Seems pretty trivial though, very few Google hits. [5] Dougweller ( talk) 10:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article C. Courtney Joyner 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/C. Courtney Joyner 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. Binksternet ( talk) 01:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Allison Mackie 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/Allison Mackie 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. Binksternet ( talk) 02:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Health freedom movement may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 05:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Willow Hale 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/Willow Hale 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. Binksternet ( talk) 12:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
What's the point in arguing as there has been an agenda to ban me from the beginning.
The clues are here /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rima_Laibow if you're interested. ( Boss Reality ( talk) 09:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC))
|
I've reverted you simply because Liberty for Life fails our sourcing policy and guideline at WP:Verify and WP:RS. I wouldn't expect a new user to know this. Dougweller ( talk) 09:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
The article Global Eugenics: Using Medicine to Kill has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Lor
Chat 09:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Global Eugenics: Using Medicine to Kill 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/Global Eugenics: Using Medicine to Kill 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. TheLongTone ( talk) 10:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to
Global Eugenics: Using Medicine to Kill, please ensure that the external site is not
violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as
YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be
blocked from editing.
If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:
If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. The film itself is made up of YouTube videos which are presumably copyright, hence we can't link to it as the film itself is a copyright violation Dougweller ( talk) 14:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
You need to read WP:MOVIE to understand what we mean when we say a film is notable, which is very different than what I think is your meaning. You also need to understand our sourcing policy, see WP:RS. Dougweller ( talk) 07:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Boss Reality! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Please read WP:NOR. We can't say something is obvious. We might be able to quote someone saying that, but we can't decide what is related to what, that's original research. Dougweller ( talk) 10:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rima Laibow 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/Rima Laibow 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. LuckyLouie ( talk) 12:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Apparently because I am insisting that you follow our policy and guidelines on sources, particularly for living people (see WP:BLP you think I may be vandalising or trying to bury a connection between Stubblebine and Laibow. That's ridiculous. What I want to know is if you've bothered to read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS and if so how do you justify using fringe websites and self-published books as sources? Or a book published 11 years ago as proof they are married today? Wasn't Stubblebine married before? And as I said on this BLP talk page, we've had situations when we have known someone was dead but there was no way we could state that in their article due to lack of reliable sources.
It's hard to believe that you have read the guidelines and polices that other editors and myself have tried to get you to read so that you will understand why your edits are being reverted or articles taken to AfD. In discussions you don't refer to them. You really need to start doing so. I don't mean to be harsh but this is wasting good editors' time. Dougweller ( talk) 12:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Albert Stubblebine shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dougweller ( talk) 13:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rima Laibow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alex Jones ( 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) 08:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
( Boss Reality ( talk) 10:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC))
Please stop posting illiterate gibberish like this into the Rima Laibow article. Either she stated something, or she didn't. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 19:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I really need to understand what you think we mean by "reliable sources". We do require WP:COMPETENCE. I presume you have read the links you've been given. So let me know how you understand the phrase? Dougweller ( talk) 07:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rima Laibow may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 10:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rima Laibow may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 11:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gary Null may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 11:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Gary Null may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 07:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Codex Alimentarius may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 08:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Below is what I have posted in the Talk Section of the Codex Alimentarius article. I have added a new section Vocal concern to Codex Alimentarius and opposition to the article. This contains people in vocal opposition to Codex Alimentarius. Now I have no doubt in my mind that there is an angenda here to censor certain information that relate to certain issues. Having been here for a short time I have had 2 articles deleted. In my opinion, the second one was deliberately and strategically vandalised in a way to make it seem worthless in the eyes of others. Perhaps some people who normally would rescue and improve such an article wouldn't when it was made such a mess. Now I've addeed this section here with the nammes of people that some here may find controversial. I know that some here would do anything to censor this info. Wikipedia should not be censored and if it continues I will take the matter further. Thanks. ( Boss Reality ( talk) 07:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC))
You are making threats and failing to accept good faith and making false accusations of WP:VANDALISM. If they weren't so feeble I might consider you've had enough rope, but I strongly advise you to stop. Dougweller ( talk) 08:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Now as for threats, I've made nothing of the sort. All I said is that if this (What I believe to be) unconstructive behavior continues, I'd take the matter futher. Now I know that when people see things untoward here they report the matter to senior staff. If in some way I'm unique and I am not allowed to engage in this process then please let me know. So there are 2 questions I'd like to put to you BullRangifer ......
>>> Am I or am I not allowed to report or bring to the attention of senior admin or site owners, things that I believe to be wrong and unfair ????
>>> Am I or am I not allowed to edit articles or create articles that may have controversial matters people in them? And further expansion on this question, Should I not add things that may offend or anger someone because it may conflict their belief system or offend their political or other beliefs? Should I not add any content that may give an indication that a certain organisation may not be doing the right thing?
Thanks (
Boss Reality (
talk) 23:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC))
Quote - Doug Weller is an admin, so you're already dealing with leadership. Since he's not abusing his admin tools, you won't get anywhere, except to damage your credibility and make enemies.
Reply Sorry my friend, I'm in total disagreement here. I've experienced different.
Quote - Now please answer my question: Do you work for the
National Health Federation?
Reply, No, not that org. I work for the Nice Happy Fountain. And not the one in
Church Crookham either. The Nice Happy Fountain is me my friend. The sheer aburdity of your question has hit my happy spot and no matter how hard I try, I have to say my good friend that I cannot take any kind of offence to that remark or even bother to ponder on the questioners actual intent. You've put a smile on my face and bless you for that. (
Boss Reality (
talk) 09:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC))
And as for the NHF, I don't know if that organisation and Scott Tips are decent people or controlled opposition. That's not the reason for my edits and article creation. Mine is that this is a public website and I stand against certain types of censorship. I WILL NOT stand by idle and watch this place turned into an extension of a certain news (and that's a joke) organisation with some one like (Fictional name) Bull O'Really parroting a script that has been written by people who decide what we're allowed to know. ( Boss Reality ( talk) 23:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC))
Boss, this isn't a "public website". It's an encyclopedia anyone can help build provided they agree to abide by its policies. You've read our policies, yes? - LuckyLouie ( talk) 01:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Scott Tips 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/Scott Tips 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. LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Scott Tips. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. This edit [1] - see the talk page and the AfD. Dougweller ( talk) 11:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scott Tips, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CCFA. 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) 08:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Allison Mackie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Thompson. 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) 09:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
First there was the claim that Goth Girls was a tv series. Then there was B.O.G.E. - you obviously don't know what this is. I wonder if you found this. [2] You obviously didn't find these. [3] [4] Seems pretty trivial though, very few Google hits. [5] Dougweller ( talk) 10:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article C. Courtney Joyner 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/C. Courtney Joyner 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. Binksternet ( talk) 01:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Allison Mackie 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/Allison Mackie 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. Binksternet ( talk) 02:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Health freedom movement may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 05:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Willow Hale 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/Willow Hale 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. Binksternet ( talk) 12:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
What's the point in arguing as there has been an agenda to ban me from the beginning.
The clues are here /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rima_Laibow if you're interested. ( Boss Reality ( talk) 09:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC))