User talk:Bonobonobo
Speedy deletion of John Mason (Scottish politician)
[edit]
A tag has been placed on John Mason (Scottish politician) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. -- Darth Mike (Talk • Contribs) 23:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
July 2008
[edit]
Thanks for experimenting with the page John Mason (Scottish politician) on Wikipedia. Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information, and has been reverted or removed. All information in the encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable published source. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. Road Wizard (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of John Mason (Scottish politician)
[edit]A tag has been placed on John Mason (Scottish politician), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. -- Darth Mike (Talk • Contribs) 01:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Content
[edit]Regarding this assertion, I believe you're unaware that notability does not apply to content. Cheers. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
The comments you restored contain personal attacks directed at a number of editors. Such comments are prohibited by WP policy and per WP policy I have removed them. Please do not restore them again. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- Refrain from making off-topic comments, such as this, on talk pages. Comment regarding the article, not about other editors or how you think they should edit. seicer | talk | contribs 23:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Please do not add unproductive "disclaimers" that are little more than personal attacks upon editors that do not agree with you. If new users are being directed to join in on the discussion via off-wiki sites about whether the NE's allegations about John Edwards should be included in the article, then they should either be reminded of WP:MEATPUPPET or advised to make sure that they comply with Wikipedia's WP:CIVIL and WP:CONSENSUS policies (among others), nothing more, nothing less. They should not be told that one side of the discussion is wrong while the other is right. Many of Wikipedia's policies are vague and open to interpretation and as a result, it is entirely possible for reasonable editors to have different opinions about how these policies are applied. You also seem to be under the mistaken impression that new IP users are treated differently than new named users on Wikipedia in regards to discussions. This is simply not the case. IP addresses should be treated the same as named users. In the case of an IP user that has only made a few edits and all on the same subject, then they are treated as a WP:SPA, just like a named user that has only made a few edits and all on the same subject. Conversely, an IP user that has established a long history of productive editing is treated the same as a named editor with an equally long producitve editing history. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
3RR warning
[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:John Edwards. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- This doesn't apply to talk pages when people are delteing you own comments for spurious reasons. So stop with the games. Bonobonobo (talk) 00:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
oink oink
[edit]Thank you for confirming the level of maturity to which I had already assumed. Regarding your claim to "victory", I am sorry that you seem to be unable (or unwilling) to comprehend the points that were made by myself and others. The actual arguments were against a rush to inclusion, not an attempt to keep it out entirely. Regarding the pig, the real irony here is that you continue to exhibit a particular fancy for fighting in the mud, so to speak... I didn't call out anyone in particular. ;-) Please try to limit yourself to constructive comments, continued incivility and immature comments will likely get you into trouble. I hope in the future you'll learn to actually try and understand an opposing point of view (and consult relevant policy) instead of knocking down strawmen. Best of luck. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
/Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm only sorry you're incapable of understanding the irony of posting a comment like this and then accusing me of not having humility. Pardon the snark, but I don't know if I should laugh at you or feel sorry for you. I don't see the value in any of this discussion, so please move along. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)