Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. HawkerTyphoon 19:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you! yandman 15:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- Strothra 14:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Please start behaving like a proper member of the wikipedia community. Nwe 14:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
For the record, this was the article he found too distateful and personally insulting to allow on his talk page. So far he has avoided any discussion whatsover on this topic, depsite several prompts and offers of compromise on my behalf.
"You're right it is ridiculous that you think my edits are "clear POV". Why don't you come onto the talk page and discuss this like a man if you feel so strongly about it?"
Nwe 14:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I have a problem with editors who violate 3RR in order to push a POV. I also have a problem with editors who use personal attacks agianst other editors. when you are ready to become civil and abide by WP policy, I'll discuss the contents of your edits with you. Isarig 15:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Regarding reversions [1] made on October 28 2006 to 2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict
The duration of the block is 24 hours.
No matter how strongly you feel on this, please stay within 3RR and avoid personal attacks.
William M. Connolley 16:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah man no matter how true your edit is, you should comply with WP:3RR. Keep struggling! Nielswik (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The duration of the block is 48 hours. -- Avi 05:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
User_talk:Cerebral_Warrior#A_Proposal_by_crazyeddie crazyeddie 15:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I can live without the mention of Jerusalem day, though I still feel it is relevant. However, unless you can cite sources about the "difficulties" of East Jerusalem residents, they should not be included. -- יהושועEric 21:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Your East Jerusalem source, which displays heavy bias and is written by a religious group, makes no reference to the "daily human rights violations" that you imply. Please find a neutral source to back this claim. Limiting building restrictions is in the fair rights of a municipality. In addition, the limiting of access by non-citizen Palestinians is also completely legal. All Palestinians living in Jerusalem were offered Israeli citizenship in 1967. Those who do not have citizenship choose not to take it. Israeli citizens (including all legal residents of the Arab sections of Jerusalem) are granted full access to Israeli schools, health care, welfare programs, and free movement in the country. This is as with almost all free countries in the world. Limiting access by illegal residents is also usual, as takes place in the United States, for example, in dealing with Mexican illegal immigration. A fair source that can backup this claim with factual evidence is a fair request. -- יהושועEric 22:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Done. -- יהושועEric 23:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Nwe, you say "the AFSC is not anti-Israeli" (or anti-Israel, as I wrote). I invite you to Google < American Friends Service Committee anti-Israel > and see what comes up - especially the "ON CAMERA" column. You might be surprised. Hertz1888 15:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC) Hertz, Believe it or not, the assertions of a devoutly partisan blog are not regarded by WP policy as proof of an organisation's position. The blog also calls Amnesty International anti-Israeli, but I doubt that would be accepted on their page, in fact it would probably be regarded as vandalism. A group that calls for "a just and lasting peace for Palestinians and Israelis"( see [2]) cannot be called anti-Israeli. Nwe 15:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Please explain how Gaza is still considered occupied? All Israeli forces withdrew and all Jewish families were forcibly removed from the area. -- יהושועEric 21:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I moved your comment to and replied here. Tewfik Talk 18:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Please stop removing the summary of this article from John Prescott. If you want to summarise the subsidiary article in a better form that is fine but it must be summarised and that you have not done. If you disagree then take the matter to the talk page. BlueValour 16:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Why do you bother sticking in citation needed templates to articles like this when it takes a minute to find a source on google? It would be far more helpful to wikipedia to do that rather than demanding references for facts that most people recognise to be true. Number 5 7 08:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Iraq War. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Don't add this unsourced nonsense to articles. Happy editing! VegitaU 16:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I know that this now may make it look like an exhortation to gang up and help each other in the editing process - but I did just want to say thank you for (unintentionally) making me feel today that I am not alone or mad when it comes to dealing with this crazy article and some of the people who seem to think they have taken charge of it and seem impervious to any rational debate, or statement of the obvious, which happens to contradict their own deeply held beliefs. And to think I only started here (anonymously under an old IP address) editing out typos in film articles. Btw I have also posted this on G-Dett's talk page -- Nickhh 19:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Please remember to mark your edits, as you did to Gulf War as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. -- Oneiros 18:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Please stop removing Bertie Ahern's highly controversial suicide remarks from his entry on Wikipedia, they are very relevant to the article and please use your time to do more constructive editing besides removing details like this. -- Netwhizkid ( talk) 13:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you removed an image from Persecution of Christians, with the comment, "that's related to the persecution of an ethnic minority which is different, we also have context in a case like that, we also have none here &the image is misleading terms whole article". I was wondering if you could expain this--I'm not really an expert on Spanish history. Which ethnic minority is being persecuted in the photo? And how is the desecration of a statue of Jesus by anti-clericalists to be parsed from persecution of Christians? A lot of religious persecution has ethnic persecution at its root. Thanks for your help. MishaPan ( talk) 01:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Nwe. I see your point. There is certainly enough ambiguity with regard to motive to warrant the image's removal. Thank you for your time. MishaPan ( talk) 01:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Since you restored text about Milton Friedman to the Nobel prize controversies article, could you please comment about it in Talk:Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences? I moved the text to the Controversies and criticisms section of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences article but another editor keeps removing it stating that it's not true. Thanks! – panda ( talk) 14:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.-- Doopdoop ( talk) 23:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I have a question for you regarding this edit you made to the Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor article. Specifically, I am not sure what this is supposed to mean:
“ | ...Frederick further appeased Henry by issueing him with the Privilegium Minus, granting him unprecented entitlements as Duke of Austria, in the hopes [On June 9 1156 at Würzburg, Frederick married Beatrice of Burgundy, daughter and heiress... | ” |
On the assumption that the ", in the hopes [" part is extraneous, I have deleted it. However if this is incorrect, please revise as you see fit. Thanks, Kralizec! ( talk) 22:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you ought to read the articles people suggest--rather than just the summaries--before insulting them. I recommended a multi-page whitepaper on Klein and you accuse me of dismissing Klein based on four paragraphs, moving on to suggest that I am incapable of judging criticism of people with whom I substantially agree. By my standards both your decision to lie about my source and your insinuation that I am not capable to judge criticism are profoundly rude. Perhaps, where you are from or in your profession you have a lower standard of decency. It looks given the contents of this talk page that you have a history of bad behavior on Wikipedia. Bkalafut ( talk) 09:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
You began by telling me that I based my assessment of the merits of Klein's book on four off-the-cuff paragraphs, a brazen attempt to make me look like an idiot. You moved on to suggest that "supporters of Friedman" can't fairly judge his critics, as though our intellectual capacities go out the window. And then, a few posts later, there was that Friedman/God thing. Don't be so sanctimonious as to invoke Wikipedia etiquette when it was you who first came out with fists swinging. Quid pro quo is fair. If you want to roll in the mud, I'll roll in the mud.
We have what seems to be an intractable disagreement on Wikipedia's policy regarding reliable vs fringe sources. I maintain that "fringe" is context dependent, you maintain that we as Wikipedia editors must treat all popularly notable opinions the same regardless of their context. (Correct me if I'm wrong re: your position.) Ancillary to that, I stand by my contention that in the context of economic history, Klein's views are fringe.
By the way, having read your post to my talk page, I'm now more convinced of both your good faith and your sanity. Bkalafut ( talk) 07:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
he IS darth kirchner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.30.155.114 ( talk) 18:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I've requested a reassessment of the good article status of the Milton Friedman article based on lack of neutrality, and have added a POV tag to the article. Please join the discussion, if you are interested. Thanks. Jdstany ( talk) 03:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
D'oh! I didn't notice that the sentence referred to the Jordanian/Egyptian occupation, so of course it should refer to the Israeli occupation. I thought it only used the word captured in both instances. Sorry about that. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 19:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I dunno, somewhere along the line there was the suggestion that it was Zionist or something, so I added it in saying it was not. I agree it's not necessary; but there was a reason for putting it there-- I am glad it's taken out of the equation. Best wishes SimonTrew ( talk) 03:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually thinking back, I think I just got so fed up with this article getting vandalised I thought I would do a little myself just to see what happened. That's not like me, but this must be one of the most vandalised articles on Wikipedia and I just lost my rag. It is the fairly well established Orwell did not know about the Jewish Holocaust, very few people in England did, and I think in his later diaries he says so himself, though I can't pin that down in my own mind right now. Even so it should be referenced etc. So, it was factually correct, but perhaps a bit of a teaser. SimonTrew ( talk) 03:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Centre-left. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre-left. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
WP:OR, WP:CITE, WP:OPINION. Thanks, RaseaC ( talk) 23:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC).
It appears you're unfarmiliar with how Huggle works. Basically it throws up a bunch of pages (one every two seconds or so) and allows an editor to revert glaring inaccuracies (such as uncited opinion). Even an editor with the most diverse interests is going to come across something they're uninterested in if they're looking at 30 pages a minute. The fact of the matter is you made a claim and didn't provide a source. End of. It's unfortunate that you've chosen to reply with such incivilty and in light of that I'm done with this discussion until you can conduct yourself in a way that's more compatible with this community. Thanks, RaseaC ( talk) 00:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC).
Hey dude, Could you come to Occupied territories and weigh in on the discussion raging regarding your past link edit. Thanks NickCT ( talk) 03:23, 15 December 2009 (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) 16:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. HawkerTyphoon 19:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you! yandman 15:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- Strothra 14:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Please start behaving like a proper member of the wikipedia community. Nwe 14:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
For the record, this was the article he found too distateful and personally insulting to allow on his talk page. So far he has avoided any discussion whatsover on this topic, depsite several prompts and offers of compromise on my behalf.
"You're right it is ridiculous that you think my edits are "clear POV". Why don't you come onto the talk page and discuss this like a man if you feel so strongly about it?"
Nwe 14:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I have a problem with editors who violate 3RR in order to push a POV. I also have a problem with editors who use personal attacks agianst other editors. when you are ready to become civil and abide by WP policy, I'll discuss the contents of your edits with you. Isarig 15:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Regarding reversions [1] made on October 28 2006 to 2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict
The duration of the block is 24 hours.
No matter how strongly you feel on this, please stay within 3RR and avoid personal attacks.
William M. Connolley 16:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah man no matter how true your edit is, you should comply with WP:3RR. Keep struggling! Nielswik (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The duration of the block is 48 hours. -- Avi 05:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
User_talk:Cerebral_Warrior#A_Proposal_by_crazyeddie crazyeddie 15:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I can live without the mention of Jerusalem day, though I still feel it is relevant. However, unless you can cite sources about the "difficulties" of East Jerusalem residents, they should not be included. -- יהושועEric 21:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Your East Jerusalem source, which displays heavy bias and is written by a religious group, makes no reference to the "daily human rights violations" that you imply. Please find a neutral source to back this claim. Limiting building restrictions is in the fair rights of a municipality. In addition, the limiting of access by non-citizen Palestinians is also completely legal. All Palestinians living in Jerusalem were offered Israeli citizenship in 1967. Those who do not have citizenship choose not to take it. Israeli citizens (including all legal residents of the Arab sections of Jerusalem) are granted full access to Israeli schools, health care, welfare programs, and free movement in the country. This is as with almost all free countries in the world. Limiting access by illegal residents is also usual, as takes place in the United States, for example, in dealing with Mexican illegal immigration. A fair source that can backup this claim with factual evidence is a fair request. -- יהושועEric 22:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Done. -- יהושועEric 23:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Nwe, you say "the AFSC is not anti-Israeli" (or anti-Israel, as I wrote). I invite you to Google < American Friends Service Committee anti-Israel > and see what comes up - especially the "ON CAMERA" column. You might be surprised. Hertz1888 15:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC) Hertz, Believe it or not, the assertions of a devoutly partisan blog are not regarded by WP policy as proof of an organisation's position. The blog also calls Amnesty International anti-Israeli, but I doubt that would be accepted on their page, in fact it would probably be regarded as vandalism. A group that calls for "a just and lasting peace for Palestinians and Israelis"( see [2]) cannot be called anti-Israeli. Nwe 15:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Please explain how Gaza is still considered occupied? All Israeli forces withdrew and all Jewish families were forcibly removed from the area. -- יהושועEric 21:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I moved your comment to and replied here. Tewfik Talk 18:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Please stop removing the summary of this article from John Prescott. If you want to summarise the subsidiary article in a better form that is fine but it must be summarised and that you have not done. If you disagree then take the matter to the talk page. BlueValour 16:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Why do you bother sticking in citation needed templates to articles like this when it takes a minute to find a source on google? It would be far more helpful to wikipedia to do that rather than demanding references for facts that most people recognise to be true. Number 5 7 08:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Iraq War. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Don't add this unsourced nonsense to articles. Happy editing! VegitaU 16:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I know that this now may make it look like an exhortation to gang up and help each other in the editing process - but I did just want to say thank you for (unintentionally) making me feel today that I am not alone or mad when it comes to dealing with this crazy article and some of the people who seem to think they have taken charge of it and seem impervious to any rational debate, or statement of the obvious, which happens to contradict their own deeply held beliefs. And to think I only started here (anonymously under an old IP address) editing out typos in film articles. Btw I have also posted this on G-Dett's talk page -- Nickhh 19:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Please remember to mark your edits, as you did to Gulf War as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. -- Oneiros 18:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Please stop removing Bertie Ahern's highly controversial suicide remarks from his entry on Wikipedia, they are very relevant to the article and please use your time to do more constructive editing besides removing details like this. -- Netwhizkid ( talk) 13:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you removed an image from Persecution of Christians, with the comment, "that's related to the persecution of an ethnic minority which is different, we also have context in a case like that, we also have none here &the image is misleading terms whole article". I was wondering if you could expain this--I'm not really an expert on Spanish history. Which ethnic minority is being persecuted in the photo? And how is the desecration of a statue of Jesus by anti-clericalists to be parsed from persecution of Christians? A lot of religious persecution has ethnic persecution at its root. Thanks for your help. MishaPan ( talk) 01:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Nwe. I see your point. There is certainly enough ambiguity with regard to motive to warrant the image's removal. Thank you for your time. MishaPan ( talk) 01:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Since you restored text about Milton Friedman to the Nobel prize controversies article, could you please comment about it in Talk:Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences? I moved the text to the Controversies and criticisms section of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences article but another editor keeps removing it stating that it's not true. Thanks! – panda ( talk) 14:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.-- Doopdoop ( talk) 23:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I have a question for you regarding this edit you made to the Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor article. Specifically, I am not sure what this is supposed to mean:
“ | ...Frederick further appeased Henry by issueing him with the Privilegium Minus, granting him unprecented entitlements as Duke of Austria, in the hopes [On June 9 1156 at Würzburg, Frederick married Beatrice of Burgundy, daughter and heiress... | ” |
On the assumption that the ", in the hopes [" part is extraneous, I have deleted it. However if this is incorrect, please revise as you see fit. Thanks, Kralizec! ( talk) 22:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you ought to read the articles people suggest--rather than just the summaries--before insulting them. I recommended a multi-page whitepaper on Klein and you accuse me of dismissing Klein based on four paragraphs, moving on to suggest that I am incapable of judging criticism of people with whom I substantially agree. By my standards both your decision to lie about my source and your insinuation that I am not capable to judge criticism are profoundly rude. Perhaps, where you are from or in your profession you have a lower standard of decency. It looks given the contents of this talk page that you have a history of bad behavior on Wikipedia. Bkalafut ( talk) 09:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
You began by telling me that I based my assessment of the merits of Klein's book on four off-the-cuff paragraphs, a brazen attempt to make me look like an idiot. You moved on to suggest that "supporters of Friedman" can't fairly judge his critics, as though our intellectual capacities go out the window. And then, a few posts later, there was that Friedman/God thing. Don't be so sanctimonious as to invoke Wikipedia etiquette when it was you who first came out with fists swinging. Quid pro quo is fair. If you want to roll in the mud, I'll roll in the mud.
We have what seems to be an intractable disagreement on Wikipedia's policy regarding reliable vs fringe sources. I maintain that "fringe" is context dependent, you maintain that we as Wikipedia editors must treat all popularly notable opinions the same regardless of their context. (Correct me if I'm wrong re: your position.) Ancillary to that, I stand by my contention that in the context of economic history, Klein's views are fringe.
By the way, having read your post to my talk page, I'm now more convinced of both your good faith and your sanity. Bkalafut ( talk) 07:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
he IS darth kirchner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.30.155.114 ( talk) 18:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I've requested a reassessment of the good article status of the Milton Friedman article based on lack of neutrality, and have added a POV tag to the article. Please join the discussion, if you are interested. Thanks. Jdstany ( talk) 03:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
D'oh! I didn't notice that the sentence referred to the Jordanian/Egyptian occupation, so of course it should refer to the Israeli occupation. I thought it only used the word captured in both instances. Sorry about that. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 19:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I dunno, somewhere along the line there was the suggestion that it was Zionist or something, so I added it in saying it was not. I agree it's not necessary; but there was a reason for putting it there-- I am glad it's taken out of the equation. Best wishes SimonTrew ( talk) 03:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually thinking back, I think I just got so fed up with this article getting vandalised I thought I would do a little myself just to see what happened. That's not like me, but this must be one of the most vandalised articles on Wikipedia and I just lost my rag. It is the fairly well established Orwell did not know about the Jewish Holocaust, very few people in England did, and I think in his later diaries he says so himself, though I can't pin that down in my own mind right now. Even so it should be referenced etc. So, it was factually correct, but perhaps a bit of a teaser. SimonTrew ( talk) 03:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Centre-left. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre-left. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
WP:OR, WP:CITE, WP:OPINION. Thanks, RaseaC ( talk) 23:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC).
It appears you're unfarmiliar with how Huggle works. Basically it throws up a bunch of pages (one every two seconds or so) and allows an editor to revert glaring inaccuracies (such as uncited opinion). Even an editor with the most diverse interests is going to come across something they're uninterested in if they're looking at 30 pages a minute. The fact of the matter is you made a claim and didn't provide a source. End of. It's unfortunate that you've chosen to reply with such incivilty and in light of that I'm done with this discussion until you can conduct yourself in a way that's more compatible with this community. Thanks, RaseaC ( talk) 00:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC).
Hey dude, Could you come to Occupied territories and weigh in on the discussion raging regarding your past link edit. Thanks NickCT ( talk) 03:23, 15 December 2009 (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) 16:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)