The reason you offered for your revert was nonsensical and nonexistent. As such, it constitutes disruptive editing. Kindly try to be more constructive. If you believe a (whole) section from an article must be deleted, you might want to bring the matter up in the talk page first. Take care. - The Gnome ( talk) 19:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I thought the edit of the lead for Four Noble Truths was good. I regretted seeing it reverted by you and made reference to it in the Talk page. I believe I understand your reasoning for the revert, but I respectfully disagree and feel that reinstating the edits would improve the article and move it forward. PeterEdits ( talk) 03:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Copied to Talk:Four Noble Truths#Lead - revision April 25, 2015 at 09:29. Please continue there. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kōdō Sawaki, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Takada. 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) 09:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I am Herman Raucher's daughter and I want to add his official website to his Wikipedia page, as well as correct biographical details that are wrong here. Several of his books are about to be back in print as e-books I'd like to announce that here. Can you please advise me the right way to do this? Thank you.
Hello, and good day. On 28th April you reverted a section blanking in the Rape jihad article. As this blanking was considered to be a part of consensus by some users and tendentious by one user I was wondering if you would be so kind enough to comment on the TP of the article telling us why you thought the section removal was something to be reverted. I hope I am not being rude and you have every right to not comment , but we were hoping that if you made a comment the matter will be cleared up. I am also involved in the matter and took the liberty of looking at your edits made during that time, and I construed (perhaps wrongly) that you were patrolling for vandalism, saw section blanking from an anon IP and reverted the action to prevent vandalism. But I may be wrong. so if you can please come to the TP of Rape jihad it will help a great deal in resolving a dispute. FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 07:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Helpsome. I would like to better understand the reason why the paragraph "how to recognize original Murano Glass" was removed twice and considered as promotional material. The paragraph was not referring to any product on sale and only meant to share valuable information and tricks to differentiate original art. In addition, the same day I posted the article, I contacted your wikipedia colleague Willian Gwillerm and followed the procedure to change the article and make it compatible with the copyrights policy. Is there something else required in order to let the article appearing on wikipedia? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.206.225.228 ( talk) 14:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
All genuine Murano glasses are magnificent masterpieces beyond imagination. Once you hold a real Murano glass article in your hand, you will see the sunlight shining through the different colors of the Murano glass giving you a wow effect.
Buy from a recognized online shop, where you can not only have the possibility to buy genuine Murano glass from a trusted source but also read more about the Murano glass articles, contemporary Murano glass artists and watch videos
Thanks Helpsome for your quick reply. I see what you mean, however, no direct reference was made to a particular webshop in the text. Anyway, considering your point of view, would it be fine if I cut the text that you referred to, I remove the additional references and I just mention the source with a reference to the original article? In that way only the pure information is displayed. Thanks in advance for your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feline15 ( talk • contribs) 15:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I need a second opinion, are these edits at Mudra just inappropriate SPS or probably SPAM? The links are directed at websites that offer some kind of service but also some info. JimRenge ( talk) 16:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
dear Helpsome, you undid a small paragraph I wrote on roll bonding, because I self-cited a scientific paper co-authored by myself. That paper does not earn me any money, it is published by an organization I do not belong to. It was blind peer reviewed and double checked by two scientists. It is an original and thrusthworthy source of information, sceintifically proven, much more sound than many wiki pages. I really do not agree and do not understand your revert. Are you an expert of roll bonding? If not, would you please considering your revert? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strano.m ( talk • contribs) 17:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (User: Ronggy creating probable hoax series) about them. JimRenge ( talk) 11:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Sir: I understand why you deleted references to Richard Jones because you mistakenly think I know him, but why did you delete references to Jay Garfield and Jan Westerhoff too? These three scholars all have works I think Wikipedia readers would find valuable. You even deleted my corrections to the forms to the reference section! Can I add content referring to at least dead Buddhist scholars or is that now forbidden too?
Deeply confused,
Wpaul1972 ( talk) 20:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC) WPaul1972
This is getting insulting. First, in the reference section I correct the form of the entries so that they were all consistent. Perhaps you did not look before you acted.
I also added other scholars and a new point to another section. You must have deleted all that without looking too. Your fixation on Richard Jones seems bizarre if not irrational. But since you are the keeper of the gate I will not try to add anything by anyone again.
Sir: I am not shankara1000 (and I don't remember you asking if I was him or her) or Richard Jones or related to him or know him. I am not promoting him. I just think his work like the others I included is excellent and worth the attention of the Wikipedia readers. What is truly bizarre and I don't understand is why you deleted the other references even if you have an obsession with one of several scholars I referenced -- I am not promoting Jay Garfield, Jan Westerhoff, Edward Conze, Jeffrey Hopkins or Lex Hixon -- and before you ask, no I am related to any or them or know them either.
Still deeply confused,
Now saying I'm lying is going too far. You didn't ask me if I was sankara 1000 and you did delete my other references on more than one occasion. So I still have to ask if you read what you deleted. Can I speak to your advisor?
Wpaul1972 — Preceding undated comment added 22:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I hope all is well.
I received a message indicating that some citations I provided were removed because they "seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia". I looked over the guidelines for citations and I was hoping to get some clarification regarding what made these citations "inappropriate". It seemed to me that some kind of citation was preferable to leaving the information without citations. Any guidance you can provide would be greatly appreciated. There are additional citations I would like to make but I don't want to waste everyone's time if they are just going to be removed.
Thanks for your help and consideration.
References are not necessary for the gameplay info (the source of it is the released game itself, one can consult it to check) and the lead section already summarizes this stub perfectly well. -- 185.34.28.184 ( talk) 15:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
No, it's not. It's like plot, where the source is the published work (movies or books have just plot, games have plot + gameplay for content but it's the same deal). And what else do you think so much "needs to be summarized" for the lead from this stub? -- 185.34.28.184 ( talk) 16:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about that vandalism notice! I press the wrong button on accident. Datbubblegumdoe ( talk) 20:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Before I go through your edits and revert all your removals of publicliterature.org links, I would like to know why you characterize them as "spam". This looks like a legitimate noncommercial public service site that offers searchable versions of classic books that are no longer under copyright. It is a useful resource for this encyclopedia. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 06:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I recently received a message from you regarding "making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia." I would not consider my edits to be 'unconstructive.' Rather, I would consider you reverting my edits as having a negative impact on the pages I have attempted to edit and the Wikipedia's reputation a as an unbiased source of information.
I have attempted to remove content that can be considered defamatory from three pages that you and 'Mean as Custard' have been monitoring. You claim that the content is supported. This, in fact, is true. The content is supported; however, it is supported by articles authored by individuals who do not check their facts. These authors make unsubstantiated claims that you are assuming to be true, because the articles they author can be found on the Internet. You cannot categorically claim that content is accurate if it is supported by an article found on the Internet, assuming the article is not found in a blog or other such platforms you deem to be unreliable. The Internet is populated with information that is entirely inaccurate written by individuals who have little to no knowledge of the topics they discuss. This practice is particularly damaging when individuals post libelous material to tarnish another individual's image.
Please stop reverting my edits. I am not trying to 'vandalize' the pages I am attempting to edit. I am attempting to remove negative content that is untrue and supported by articles on the Internet that make false allegations with little or no evidence to support them.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvanpatten ( talk • contribs) 12:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. — Darkwind ( talk) 17:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
While I'm sure your edits were intended in good faith, the material you were reverting was not obvious vandalism, nor did it fall under any of the other three-revert rule exceptions. As such, since you were clearly edit warring with Jjohn125 ( t c) on Knee pad, I had little choice but to block you as well. — Darkwind ( talk) 17:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
The reason you offered for your revert was nonsensical and nonexistent. As such, it constitutes disruptive editing. Kindly try to be more constructive. If you believe a (whole) section from an article must be deleted, you might want to bring the matter up in the talk page first. Take care. - The Gnome ( talk) 19:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I thought the edit of the lead for Four Noble Truths was good. I regretted seeing it reverted by you and made reference to it in the Talk page. I believe I understand your reasoning for the revert, but I respectfully disagree and feel that reinstating the edits would improve the article and move it forward. PeterEdits ( talk) 03:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Copied to Talk:Four Noble Truths#Lead - revision April 25, 2015 at 09:29. Please continue there. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kōdō Sawaki, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Takada. 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) 09:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I am Herman Raucher's daughter and I want to add his official website to his Wikipedia page, as well as correct biographical details that are wrong here. Several of his books are about to be back in print as e-books I'd like to announce that here. Can you please advise me the right way to do this? Thank you.
Hello, and good day. On 28th April you reverted a section blanking in the Rape jihad article. As this blanking was considered to be a part of consensus by some users and tendentious by one user I was wondering if you would be so kind enough to comment on the TP of the article telling us why you thought the section removal was something to be reverted. I hope I am not being rude and you have every right to not comment , but we were hoping that if you made a comment the matter will be cleared up. I am also involved in the matter and took the liberty of looking at your edits made during that time, and I construed (perhaps wrongly) that you were patrolling for vandalism, saw section blanking from an anon IP and reverted the action to prevent vandalism. But I may be wrong. so if you can please come to the TP of Rape jihad it will help a great deal in resolving a dispute. FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 07:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Helpsome. I would like to better understand the reason why the paragraph "how to recognize original Murano Glass" was removed twice and considered as promotional material. The paragraph was not referring to any product on sale and only meant to share valuable information and tricks to differentiate original art. In addition, the same day I posted the article, I contacted your wikipedia colleague Willian Gwillerm and followed the procedure to change the article and make it compatible with the copyrights policy. Is there something else required in order to let the article appearing on wikipedia? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.206.225.228 ( talk) 14:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
All genuine Murano glasses are magnificent masterpieces beyond imagination. Once you hold a real Murano glass article in your hand, you will see the sunlight shining through the different colors of the Murano glass giving you a wow effect.
Buy from a recognized online shop, where you can not only have the possibility to buy genuine Murano glass from a trusted source but also read more about the Murano glass articles, contemporary Murano glass artists and watch videos
Thanks Helpsome for your quick reply. I see what you mean, however, no direct reference was made to a particular webshop in the text. Anyway, considering your point of view, would it be fine if I cut the text that you referred to, I remove the additional references and I just mention the source with a reference to the original article? In that way only the pure information is displayed. Thanks in advance for your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feline15 ( talk • contribs) 15:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I need a second opinion, are these edits at Mudra just inappropriate SPS or probably SPAM? The links are directed at websites that offer some kind of service but also some info. JimRenge ( talk) 16:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
dear Helpsome, you undid a small paragraph I wrote on roll bonding, because I self-cited a scientific paper co-authored by myself. That paper does not earn me any money, it is published by an organization I do not belong to. It was blind peer reviewed and double checked by two scientists. It is an original and thrusthworthy source of information, sceintifically proven, much more sound than many wiki pages. I really do not agree and do not understand your revert. Are you an expert of roll bonding? If not, would you please considering your revert? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strano.m ( talk • contribs) 17:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (User: Ronggy creating probable hoax series) about them. JimRenge ( talk) 11:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Sir: I understand why you deleted references to Richard Jones because you mistakenly think I know him, but why did you delete references to Jay Garfield and Jan Westerhoff too? These three scholars all have works I think Wikipedia readers would find valuable. You even deleted my corrections to the forms to the reference section! Can I add content referring to at least dead Buddhist scholars or is that now forbidden too?
Deeply confused,
Wpaul1972 ( talk) 20:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC) WPaul1972
This is getting insulting. First, in the reference section I correct the form of the entries so that they were all consistent. Perhaps you did not look before you acted.
I also added other scholars and a new point to another section. You must have deleted all that without looking too. Your fixation on Richard Jones seems bizarre if not irrational. But since you are the keeper of the gate I will not try to add anything by anyone again.
Sir: I am not shankara1000 (and I don't remember you asking if I was him or her) or Richard Jones or related to him or know him. I am not promoting him. I just think his work like the others I included is excellent and worth the attention of the Wikipedia readers. What is truly bizarre and I don't understand is why you deleted the other references even if you have an obsession with one of several scholars I referenced -- I am not promoting Jay Garfield, Jan Westerhoff, Edward Conze, Jeffrey Hopkins or Lex Hixon -- and before you ask, no I am related to any or them or know them either.
Still deeply confused,
Now saying I'm lying is going too far. You didn't ask me if I was sankara 1000 and you did delete my other references on more than one occasion. So I still have to ask if you read what you deleted. Can I speak to your advisor?
Wpaul1972 — Preceding undated comment added 22:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I hope all is well.
I received a message indicating that some citations I provided were removed because they "seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia". I looked over the guidelines for citations and I was hoping to get some clarification regarding what made these citations "inappropriate". It seemed to me that some kind of citation was preferable to leaving the information without citations. Any guidance you can provide would be greatly appreciated. There are additional citations I would like to make but I don't want to waste everyone's time if they are just going to be removed.
Thanks for your help and consideration.
References are not necessary for the gameplay info (the source of it is the released game itself, one can consult it to check) and the lead section already summarizes this stub perfectly well. -- 185.34.28.184 ( talk) 15:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
No, it's not. It's like plot, where the source is the published work (movies or books have just plot, games have plot + gameplay for content but it's the same deal). And what else do you think so much "needs to be summarized" for the lead from this stub? -- 185.34.28.184 ( talk) 16:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about that vandalism notice! I press the wrong button on accident. Datbubblegumdoe ( talk) 20:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Before I go through your edits and revert all your removals of publicliterature.org links, I would like to know why you characterize them as "spam". This looks like a legitimate noncommercial public service site that offers searchable versions of classic books that are no longer under copyright. It is a useful resource for this encyclopedia. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 06:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I recently received a message from you regarding "making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia." I would not consider my edits to be 'unconstructive.' Rather, I would consider you reverting my edits as having a negative impact on the pages I have attempted to edit and the Wikipedia's reputation a as an unbiased source of information.
I have attempted to remove content that can be considered defamatory from three pages that you and 'Mean as Custard' have been monitoring. You claim that the content is supported. This, in fact, is true. The content is supported; however, it is supported by articles authored by individuals who do not check their facts. These authors make unsubstantiated claims that you are assuming to be true, because the articles they author can be found on the Internet. You cannot categorically claim that content is accurate if it is supported by an article found on the Internet, assuming the article is not found in a blog or other such platforms you deem to be unreliable. The Internet is populated with information that is entirely inaccurate written by individuals who have little to no knowledge of the topics they discuss. This practice is particularly damaging when individuals post libelous material to tarnish another individual's image.
Please stop reverting my edits. I am not trying to 'vandalize' the pages I am attempting to edit. I am attempting to remove negative content that is untrue and supported by articles on the Internet that make false allegations with little or no evidence to support them.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvanpatten ( talk • contribs) 12:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. — Darkwind ( talk) 17:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
While I'm sure your edits were intended in good faith, the material you were reverting was not obvious vandalism, nor did it fall under any of the other three-revert rule exceptions. As such, since you were clearly edit warring with Jjohn125 ( t c) on Knee pad, I had little choice but to block you as well. — Darkwind ( talk) 17:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)