User talk:Timcalifornia

Nomination of Don Schieferdecker for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Don Schieferdecker is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Schieferdecker until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Shearonink (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Don Scheiferdecker has been reverted.
Your edit here to Don Scheiferdecker was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed email address removed) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Wikipedia pages should not contain personal information such as email addresses. For more information, please read Wikipedia:Biography of Living People, specifically the section about personal information.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remove the template for the nomination for deletion please, instead, if you feel it should be kept, contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Schieferdecker. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 04:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing the deletion notice from the article Don Schieferdecker. It is placed at the top of the article for the convenience of other editors who may not know that the deletion discussion is in progress. (Unlike proposed deletion, removing the articles for deletion notice will not stop the deletion debate. Feel free to contribute to it instead at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Schieferdecker.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don Schieferdecker

Hi, Timcalifornia!

I noticed you keep reverting my removal of sources from Don Schieferdecker. While I respect the fact that you want to add additional sources to the article, the three sources I removed are considered unreliable per our reliable sources policy. Thus, these sources shouldn't be included in the article. I am also removing links from the External Links section. This is purely because these links are included in the references, there's no reason to re-include them.

Sorry about any confusion I am causing, I know it's difficult to see an article go up for deletion. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask them on my talk page or join me in #wikipedia-en-help ^connect (click the green connect link), which is a real time chat channel that you can ask questions in. I go under the nickname matthewrbowker, so feel free to address me directly. Thanks, and happy editing. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Say hi!} 03:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of boycotts

Please discuss the material that has been deleted at this article before you add it back in again. The citation (as seen here) does not seem to support your assertion- there is no evidence that a particullar organized boycott has been declared in this instance and, even if there were, the citation does not support the stated 'Tourism/Business' claim. Thank you. Shearonink (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of boycotts. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 狐 FOX 19:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Don Schieferdecker

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Don Schieferdecker 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 important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Snpp (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]