A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. Adam9007 ( talk) 22:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a
speedy deletion tag from
Appreciate the congrats for being right on Islamic terrorism, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's
talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you.
Adam9007 (
talk)
22:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Nomination of Appreciate the congrats for being right on Islamic terrorism for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Appreciate the congrats for being right on Islamic terrorism 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/Appreciate the congrats for being right on Islamic terrorism 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. Ya sh ! 23:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Please do not remove
speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with
Appreciate the congrats for being right on Islamic terrorism. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's
talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you.
Adam9007 (
talk)
23:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to remove speedy deletion notices from pages you created yourself, as you did at
Appreciate the congrats for being right on Islamic terrorism, you may be
blocked from editing.
Adam9007 (
talk)
23:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove a
speedy deletion notice from a page you have created yourself, as you did at
Appreciate the congrats for being right on Islamic terrorism.
Adam9007 (
talk)
23:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Are you capable of reading (or thinking, for that matter?)
1. Do not blank pages with a deletion discussion underway 2. The rule you cite applies to "WHOLLY UNSOURCED" PAGES. it is not our job to be nice when reliable sources say something negative. Cheeto Jesus ( talk) 23:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- No it doesn't. Read it again carefully, it says "This includes libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person OR an article about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral version in the history to revert to". The first part doesn't say anything about being unsourced. Adam9007 ( talk) 23:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I doubt you even know what libel or harassment is, but it does not, by definition, include well-sourced, factual statements. Are the 30 sources I cited guilty of libel, too? Good thing you're not a judge.
- It doesn't matter how factual it was, its tone was completely negative, i.e. an attack. Adam9007 ( talk) 23:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Better go remove the fact that Adolf Hitler slaughtered 6 million Jews from his page too, then, Neo-Nazi. After all, "it doesn't matter how factual it was." Cheeto Jesus ( talk) 23:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a newspaper, neither is the article you wrote even near being neutral. The gaffe itself is not significant enough to have an article. Almost everything he says gets the same (sometimes more coverage) but that doesn't warrant an article of its own. Ya sh ! 23:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- That is written from a neutral point of view. Your article was not. Adam9007 ( talk) 23:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
It was the official end of Trump's campaign. No person with a functioning nervous system still thinks he has a chance of winning anymore. Cheeto Jesus ( talk) 23:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
PS Why is Wikipedia overrun with Trump-heads? A sociological puzzle. Cheeto Jesus ( talk) 23:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. The thread is
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Cheeto_Jesus reported by User:Yash! (Result: ). Thank you.
Ya
sh
!
23:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be
blocked from editing.
Acroterion
(talk)
23:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- You appear to have mistaken this encyclopedia for a politics forum. If you continue to abuse the encyclopedia or if you attack other editors for enforcing Wikipedia policy, you will be blocked. Acroterion (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Acroterion
(talk)
23:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. Adam9007 ( talk) 22:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a
speedy deletion tag from
Appreciate the congrats for being right on Islamic terrorism, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's
talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you.
Adam9007 (
talk)
22:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Nomination of Appreciate the congrats for being right on Islamic terrorism for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Appreciate the congrats for being right on Islamic terrorism 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/Appreciate the congrats for being right on Islamic terrorism 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. Ya sh ! 23:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Please do not remove
speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with
Appreciate the congrats for being right on Islamic terrorism. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's
talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you.
Adam9007 (
talk)
23:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to remove speedy deletion notices from pages you created yourself, as you did at
Appreciate the congrats for being right on Islamic terrorism, you may be
blocked from editing.
Adam9007 (
talk)
23:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove a
speedy deletion notice from a page you have created yourself, as you did at
Appreciate the congrats for being right on Islamic terrorism.
Adam9007 (
talk)
23:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Are you capable of reading (or thinking, for that matter?)
1. Do not blank pages with a deletion discussion underway 2. The rule you cite applies to "WHOLLY UNSOURCED" PAGES. it is not our job to be nice when reliable sources say something negative. Cheeto Jesus ( talk) 23:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- No it doesn't. Read it again carefully, it says "This includes libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person OR an article about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral version in the history to revert to". The first part doesn't say anything about being unsourced. Adam9007 ( talk) 23:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I doubt you even know what libel or harassment is, but it does not, by definition, include well-sourced, factual statements. Are the 30 sources I cited guilty of libel, too? Good thing you're not a judge.
- It doesn't matter how factual it was, its tone was completely negative, i.e. an attack. Adam9007 ( talk) 23:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Better go remove the fact that Adolf Hitler slaughtered 6 million Jews from his page too, then, Neo-Nazi. After all, "it doesn't matter how factual it was." Cheeto Jesus ( talk) 23:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a newspaper, neither is the article you wrote even near being neutral. The gaffe itself is not significant enough to have an article. Almost everything he says gets the same (sometimes more coverage) but that doesn't warrant an article of its own. Ya sh ! 23:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- That is written from a neutral point of view. Your article was not. Adam9007 ( talk) 23:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
It was the official end of Trump's campaign. No person with a functioning nervous system still thinks he has a chance of winning anymore. Cheeto Jesus ( talk) 23:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
PS Why is Wikipedia overrun with Trump-heads? A sociological puzzle. Cheeto Jesus ( talk) 23:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. The thread is
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Cheeto_Jesus reported by User:Yash! (Result: ). Thank you.
Ya
sh
!
23:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be
blocked from editing.
Acroterion
(talk)
23:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- You appear to have mistaken this encyclopedia for a politics forum. If you continue to abuse the encyclopedia or if you attack other editors for enforcing Wikipedia policy, you will be blocked. Acroterion (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Acroterion
(talk)
23:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)