Leave a message!
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited A Christmas Carol, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Sexton and John Leech. 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) 13:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I see that you have edited WP:GAN and been reverted by the bot. Please follow the nomination instructions on the page so that this does not happen again.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The article
A Christmas Carol you nominated as a
good article has failed
; see
Talk:A Christmas Carol for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 11:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of
your recent edits, such as the edit you made to
Kit Carson, did not appear to be constructive and has been
reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the
welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use
the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.
Walter Görlitz (
talk) 16:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
Kit Carson with
this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been
reverted. Please make use of the
sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. —
MusikAnimal
talk 16:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
— MusikAnimal talk 17:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
or does the sentence (phrase, actually} "among the Indians and wild animals on the western frontier." in
Kit Carson smack of 19th century racism?
On another note, I have a picture of the Jumbo statue in St. Thomas that could go right in that article if I was clearer on Canadian copyright laws on the Freedon of Pan-o-rama issue. Any ideas? Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 17:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Probably a good decision. Carptrash ( talk) 17:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing, as you did at
Kit Carson. Your edits have been
reverted or removed.
Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 15:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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) 11:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Kit Carson 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) 19:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Kit Carson 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) 20:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Giselle 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) 00:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
A Christmas Carol you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Wassupwestcoast --
Wassupwestcoast (
talk) 04:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Giselle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Washington Smith. 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) 08:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, and
welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an
edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at
Kit Carson. Although repeatedly
reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the
normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a
consensus on the
talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 00:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Kit Carson you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
208.81.212.222 --
208.81.212.222 (
talk) 18:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Giselle you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Tim riley --
Tim riley (
talk) 14:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
The article
Giselle you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold
. The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See
Talk:Giselle for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Tim riley --
Tim riley (
talk) 16:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
The article
Kit Carson you nominated as a
good article has failed
; see
Talk:Kit Carson for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
208.81.212.222 --
208.81.212.222 (
talk) 16:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
The article
Giselle you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Giselle for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Tim riley --
Tim riley (
talk) 10:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
It takes about a month for the RfCs to close. Until such time, or if you can get early admin closure don't bother trying to get it to GA. It's impossible. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 16:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
You're new but you've been around long enough for me not to template you. Consider this your final warning - if you edit-war at Kit Carson again I will report you at the Administrators' noticeboard. Trust me, they'll take a dim view of the fact that you're blindly edit-warring while actively participating in a discussion with other editors who have challenged those very edits. Blindly edit-warring on the basis of personal opinion is just silly. You're heading very quickly toward a block for disruption. Several editors have explained the appropriate course of action (discussion of sources and associated claims on the talk page) but you continue to ignore them and so you will continue to be reverted. St★lwart 111 00:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Horatio Alger, Jr., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Bassett. 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) 09:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
It's that simple. I'm not sure why you don't understand that. There are also editors who object to your changes over the past month. When the RfCs are closed, I suspect that the editors will start to take you to task for your edits. I suggest that before you nominate it for GA status, that you make a suggestion on the talk page. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
The RfCs and other "flies in the ointment" are at least a monrth old and there has been no intelligent, significant, meaningful response. There are no RfCs regarding Carson at this point in time. While some may object to my editing, my material has been cited to recent and valued tomes about Carson that superceded the crusty, dog-earred volumes some seem to think are invaluable. This is not a FA. The RfCs can't remain open and posted forever. I should think you would know that. SeeSpot Run ( talk) 19:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Jumbo you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Shyamal --
Shyamal (
talk) 15:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kit Carson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Navajo. 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) 08:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Louise Fitzjames, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gautier. 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) 09:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
There was a GA2 but I don't think that it progressed. Was it failed? I was interested in reviewing it perhaps can I start the GA3? — Yash! [talk] 11:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Story of the Three Bears, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Nicol. 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) 09:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. DawnDusk ( talk) 04:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This account has been
blocked indefinitely as a
sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are
allowed, but using them for
illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban
may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may
appeal this block by adding the text {{
unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. |
SeeSpot Run ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am not the sock puppet of Itslassietime. Firstly, the block was misinformed and hasty. I was blocked without any real evidence. From what I ubderstand, Its lassie time damaged the project. I have been working here for six months without incident. I cannot understand why I was bloacked. Because I have similar interests? Many editors here have similar interests. There is no real evidence that I am the sock puppet of any one else. Please lift the block so I can continue to edit with professionalism and dedication. SeeSpot Run ( talk) 20:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
The article
Jumbo you nominated as a
good article has failed
; see
Talk:Jumbo for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Shyamal --
Shyamal (
talk) 14:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello SeeSpot Run,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Edmund Lazell for deletion, because it seems to be an article that was created in violation of a block or ban. Content created by banned users will be deleted immediately.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Roshan014 ( talk) 11:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Ballet of the Nuns you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Adam Cuerden --
Adam Cuerden (
talk) 01:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The article
Ballet of the Nuns you nominated as a
good article has failed
; see
Talk:Ballet of the Nuns for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Adam Cuerden --
Adam Cuerden (
talk) 08:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Leave a message!
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited A Christmas Carol, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Sexton and John Leech. 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) 13:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I see that you have edited WP:GAN and been reverted by the bot. Please follow the nomination instructions on the page so that this does not happen again.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The article
A Christmas Carol you nominated as a
good article has failed
; see
Talk:A Christmas Carol for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 11:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of
your recent edits, such as the edit you made to
Kit Carson, did not appear to be constructive and has been
reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the
welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use
the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.
Walter Görlitz (
talk) 16:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
Kit Carson with
this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been
reverted. Please make use of the
sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. —
MusikAnimal
talk 16:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
— MusikAnimal talk 17:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
or does the sentence (phrase, actually} "among the Indians and wild animals on the western frontier." in
Kit Carson smack of 19th century racism?
On another note, I have a picture of the Jumbo statue in St. Thomas that could go right in that article if I was clearer on Canadian copyright laws on the Freedon of Pan-o-rama issue. Any ideas? Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 17:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Probably a good decision. Carptrash ( talk) 17:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing, as you did at
Kit Carson. Your edits have been
reverted or removed.
Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 15:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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) 11:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Kit Carson 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) 19:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Kit Carson 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) 20:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Giselle 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) 00:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
A Christmas Carol you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Wassupwestcoast --
Wassupwestcoast (
talk) 04:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Giselle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Washington Smith. 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) 08:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, and
welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an
edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at
Kit Carson. Although repeatedly
reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the
normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a
consensus on the
talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 00:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Kit Carson you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
208.81.212.222 --
208.81.212.222 (
talk) 18:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Giselle you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Tim riley --
Tim riley (
talk) 14:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
The article
Giselle you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold
. The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See
Talk:Giselle for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Tim riley --
Tim riley (
talk) 16:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
The article
Kit Carson you nominated as a
good article has failed
; see
Talk:Kit Carson for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
208.81.212.222 --
208.81.212.222 (
talk) 16:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
The article
Giselle you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Giselle for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Tim riley --
Tim riley (
talk) 10:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
It takes about a month for the RfCs to close. Until such time, or if you can get early admin closure don't bother trying to get it to GA. It's impossible. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 16:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
You're new but you've been around long enough for me not to template you. Consider this your final warning - if you edit-war at Kit Carson again I will report you at the Administrators' noticeboard. Trust me, they'll take a dim view of the fact that you're blindly edit-warring while actively participating in a discussion with other editors who have challenged those very edits. Blindly edit-warring on the basis of personal opinion is just silly. You're heading very quickly toward a block for disruption. Several editors have explained the appropriate course of action (discussion of sources and associated claims on the talk page) but you continue to ignore them and so you will continue to be reverted. St★lwart 111 00:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Horatio Alger, Jr., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Bassett. 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) 09:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
It's that simple. I'm not sure why you don't understand that. There are also editors who object to your changes over the past month. When the RfCs are closed, I suspect that the editors will start to take you to task for your edits. I suggest that before you nominate it for GA status, that you make a suggestion on the talk page. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
The RfCs and other "flies in the ointment" are at least a monrth old and there has been no intelligent, significant, meaningful response. There are no RfCs regarding Carson at this point in time. While some may object to my editing, my material has been cited to recent and valued tomes about Carson that superceded the crusty, dog-earred volumes some seem to think are invaluable. This is not a FA. The RfCs can't remain open and posted forever. I should think you would know that. SeeSpot Run ( talk) 19:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Jumbo you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Shyamal --
Shyamal (
talk) 15:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kit Carson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Navajo. 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) 08:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Louise Fitzjames, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gautier. 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) 09:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
There was a GA2 but I don't think that it progressed. Was it failed? I was interested in reviewing it perhaps can I start the GA3? — Yash! [talk] 11:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Story of the Three Bears, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Nicol. 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) 09:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. DawnDusk ( talk) 04:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This account has been
blocked indefinitely as a
sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are
allowed, but using them for
illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban
may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may
appeal this block by adding the text {{
unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. |
SeeSpot Run ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am not the sock puppet of Itslassietime. Firstly, the block was misinformed and hasty. I was blocked without any real evidence. From what I ubderstand, Its lassie time damaged the project. I have been working here for six months without incident. I cannot understand why I was bloacked. Because I have similar interests? Many editors here have similar interests. There is no real evidence that I am the sock puppet of any one else. Please lift the block so I can continue to edit with professionalism and dedication. SeeSpot Run ( talk) 20:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
The article
Jumbo you nominated as a
good article has failed
; see
Talk:Jumbo for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Shyamal --
Shyamal (
talk) 14:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello SeeSpot Run,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Edmund Lazell for deletion, because it seems to be an article that was created in violation of a block or ban. Content created by banned users will be deleted immediately.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Roshan014 ( talk) 11:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Ballet of the Nuns you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Adam Cuerden --
Adam Cuerden (
talk) 01:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The article
Ballet of the Nuns you nominated as a
good article has failed
; see
Talk:Ballet of the Nuns for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Adam Cuerden --
Adam Cuerden (
talk) 08:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)